thoughts on el alcalde
05.26.05 // 10:00 p.m.

Last week someone left the following comment on one of my blog posts:

I keep waiting for you to tell us how Angelinos feel about the Villaraigosa election. I'm sure other Chicagoans feel the same.

Truthfully, I really don't know. I've read some commentary pieces, some blogs, listened to some radio, and talked to a few folks. Still, these are all privileged voices. I haven't talked to the kid in ninth grade that just discovered that brown people did play some role in history, wrote poems and novels, and had a movimiento in the '60s and '70s like other oppressed groups.

I really don't know how others feel. I just know how I feel. I'm feeling good and uneasy about some things.

First, the good stuff.

I'm a Chicana who shares some things in common with Villaraigosa. We're both UCLA alum and we were both part of MEChA de UCLA.

I think that's where the similarities might end. Villaraigosa grew up in East LA without his father and went to a private school. My parents are still married, I grew up in a Los Angeles county suburb 15 miles east of East LA, and I've never attended a private school.

I voted for Villaraigosa the first chance I had to vote. In 1998 (I think) he became that Speaker for the California State Assembly. Through his position as Speaker he was automatically on the Board of Regents. This was very important to me because the Regents set admissions policy for the UC campuses.

Villaraigosa admitted to getting in to UCLA through the "back door." When I applied, I was admitted to UCLA without any consideration to my race, ethnicity or gender. Instead, my parent's education and socioeconomic status was used as some kind of proxy for race/ethnicity. Although I dislike the language he used about affirmative action -- somehow implying that the students admitted were not qualified and undeserving of their spot at the university -- I agree with him a lot more about the concept. If Villaraigosa was never admitted to UCLA, he might have not gone on to law school and a career as a union organizer and then as a career politician in city and state politics. He came out the "front door."

In 2001 when UC students took over Royce Hall on the UCLA campus we disrupted a mayoral candidate debate. Villaraigosa was one of those candidates. Rather than just leave the campus and get out of the way of rowdy students, he stuck around and helped students negotiate with the Chancellor and other administrators.

As a result of those negotiations we won three key victories. First, no one was arrested; even though arrests were threatened a few times throughout the peaceful sit in. Second, we had a whole lot of media attention. Third, we got the UC Regents to put the issue of Standing Policy 1 (SP-1, eliminated use of race, ethnicity, gender and religion in university admissions) back on the table. We wanted the Regents to rescind SP-1 and make a symbolic gesture to the State and Nation that eliminating affirmative action was a huge mistake.

***

Now, the bad stuff.

Last Tuesday, I voted for Villaraigosa again. I was happy to see him get elected. Early in the evening, Anita sent me a text message with information for the victory party. At the time (7 or so) I was interviewing people and sealed off from news about the election. I didn't know he won until a few hours later.

What was the first thing I heard? Los Angeles votes in its first Latino (or Mexican American or Chicano or Hispanic) mayor in 133 years.

For the first time in a a very, very long time the constant mention of someone's ethnicity began to bug me. I know Villaraigosa has Mexican roots, so do the rest of the city, state and nation. Why is it different this time? I'm not quite sure.

Sometime after the election last week, probably Thursday, I came home a little disturbed. I had just listened to the first half of Which Way, LA? on KCRW. Of course, the show was about the election how Villaraigosa would do his job as the leader of a diverse city and be business friendly considering he has a background as a union organizer. The first few words struck me:

Will Antonio Villaraigosa focus on Latino neighborhoods and issues or become the coalition-builder he touted himself as throughout his campaign?

I found the statement incredibly problematic and wondered if Diana Nyad, the host of the show, understood how some might take offense. Do liberal and conservative commentators question whether or not a white/majority candidate will only serve those of his or her ethnic background? I'm not sure. I'm not exactly ignorant about politics, but I've never seen race and ethnicity play such a big role. The thing that bugged me the most about the statement was that Nyad framed Villaraigosa�s ethnicity as some kind of weakness and some obstacle he had to overcome. Even more problematic was that Villaraigosa�s support came from all over Los Angeles and with people of many different backgrounds as this Los Angeles Times story demonstrated and exit polls showed.

I'm very attuned to issues of race and ethnicity. In fact, my ethnicity is the central part of my identity. I see Villaraigosa and see many things. First and foremost, he's a brown man. He's Chicano, Mexican-American, Latino, whatever. He is a politician, an organizer, a liberal. He's UCLA alum and a former Mechista. He was a direct beneficiary of affirmative action policies. He's a father, husband, etc.

I don't think any of these aspects of his identity, especially his Latino-ness, will keep from being able to focus on all kinds of issues and neighborhoods not just those considered to be "Latino neighborhoods and issues."

Comments: 6 comments [this feature no longer works]

Me siento: odd
Escuchando: this modern love - bloc party

M�s reciente:
Searches - 09.16.05
the big move - 07.29.05
mother and daughter: a comparative analysis - 07.28.05
jardineros y dom�sticas - 07.27.05
tough question - 07.25.05

antes // despu�s


star star star