|
|
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
|
|
You will find additional resources, articles and material on this page, that you might not find on other pages, including a short bibliography.
PICTURED RIGHT: Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez, the lead plaintiff in the case. In all, five families participated in the case against four school districts in Orange County. Gonzalo was of Mexican ancestry and Felicitas was Puerto Rican.
|
|
|
|
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND NOTES
This Bibliography was prepared by a High School Student in Lake Elsinore, CA, who won the State High School Research Award for her efforts:
Interviews
Primary
Gomez, Daniel, Telephone interview, April 22,2000.
Daniel Gomez attended Lincoln Elementary, the segregated school in El Modena, California. El Modena was one of the school districts mentioned in the Mendez case. While he didn’t remember the specific, because he was a child at the time, he told me how his mother would attend board meetings to voice her concern. He remembered that as a child the segregation did not seem to be a big deal. He remembers having white friends, who didn’t understand the segregation either. He remembers that his parents and other Mexican-American parents were concerned that the children were receiving an equal education. He stated that the white school across the field would get new materials and the Mexican school would get hand-me-downs and discarded materials. He told me that his white teachers at Lincoln were dedicated and cared about teaching the students at Lincoln. They would invite the students to their homes for picnics. He remembers this with a very positive attitude. These comments surprised me, I had pictured a very different situation. Mr. Gomez remembers the desegregation in the late ‘40s. Some students were sent to Roosevelt, the previously all white school. He doesn’t recall any problems during this desegregation process.
Mendez, Sylvia. Telephone Interview, 6 February, 2000.
Sylvia Mendez is the daughter of Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez. She was the child for whom they filed the case. I spent 30 minutes talking to Ms. Mendez and making arrangements for an interview. She was very kind to me. Ms. Mendez was telling me interesting facts about the case and its connection with Brown. She told me Earl Warren was governor of California at the time of the case, and that Thurgood Marshall wrote a brief as a friend-of-the-court. It confirmed my initial feeling of their involvement. It was so great getting in contact with her. I was very ecstatic that she called me confirming that she was the Sylvia Mendez I was looking for.
Mendez, Sylvia. Personal Interview, 12 February, 2000
Mrs. Andrzejczak and I made our way to Fullerton, where Ms. Mendez lives. I was extremely excited. We got to her house and she welcomed us in. She is an amazingly beautiful woman and was very nice. She made me feel very comfortable. Then we got down to business. I asked her a number of questions. She told me the whole story about the case. It began with the Mexican school, Hoover, and the white school, 17th Street and the Felicitas and Gonzalo Fundamental Intermediate School, the school named after her parents. She told me things about the case, I hadn’t found in my research. The story began in WWII and how the Japanese were interned because of the xenophobia. She told me how her father became a prosperous tenant farmer through his lease from a Japanese-American farmer. The man had leased his land to avoid losing it. This ranch was on the Anglo side of Westminster. So in the fall, Mendez asked his sister, Sally, to enroll his children and nephews and nieces in the local 17th Street School. When they got to the school, they were denied admittance, while the lighter cousins were allowed to enroll. This obvious segregation set off the Mendez claim of segregation and subsequent court case.
Secondary
Arriola, Christopher, Telephone Interview, 21 April, 2000.
Mr. Arriola is the Santa Clara County District Attorney. Mr. Arriola has published several articles on the Mendez case including “Knocking on the School House Door”. He donated his extensive research materials to the Stanford Library, where it is housed in the Special Collection Library.
Mr. Arriola was extremely helpful and nice. He is considered a foremost expert on this case. Mr. Arriola agrees that Mendez is a turning point in American History. He notes that Mexican-American history is American History. He felt that WW2 created an opportunity and atmosphere for Mexican-Americans to stand up for their rights. He states that the Mendez, Gomez, Palomino, Estrada, and Ramirez families had the fortitude and courage to take a stand against segregated education. At first they had no outside help in their quest.
On the issue of how the Mendez case attacked Plessy v. Ferguson, Mr. Arriola thinks that the case did attack the very foundation of the separate but equal doctrine. The NAACP’s friend of the court brief wanted the Mendez case to attack Plessy. In contrast, the appellate courts were unwilling to attack the doctrine of “separate but equal”. Marcus the attorney wanted to make the case as palatable as possible so he pushed the same race concept, that Mexican-American children were white. This argument was used previously In re. Rodriguez.
Mr. Arriola believes that Mendez is more of a political precedent than a legal precedent to the Brown Case. He stresses that the Mendez case is an important precedent in civil rights. It might have been the “Brown Case” if the districts would have appealed to the Supreme Court. Thus the Mendez case is an indirect precedent to Brown.
Mr. Arriola feels that Mendez v. Westminster is understudied and often overlooked by historians. Thanks to Mr. Arriola’s legal perspective, I understand more about the case and its relationship to both Plessy and Brown.
Arroyo, Luis, Dr. Personal correspondence, 7 March, 2000.
Dr. Arroyo is the Chicano Studies chair from California State University Long Beach. He wrote that the Mendez case gave many of the ideas for the constructing the arguments in Brown case. He told me how Mexican American activists in Texas to challenge the school segregation of children in Texas.
Gonzalez, Gilbert G. Personal correspondence. 28 February, 2000.
Professor Gonzales, UCI, wrote to me that the case was the first step in groundwork for the Brown case. He believed it was a precedent. He explained that the Mendez case was the first application of the 14th Amendment to overthrow the practice. He states it is little known that Marshall was given all the documentation from the Mendez lawyer, Marcus, and that it proved to be valuable to him later. Marshall believed that his friend of the court brief contained all the main arguments he would later use in Brown. Prof. Gonzalez did Mendez as a turning point. He states that it led to a more democratic educational process, because of the Mendez case de jure segregation could no longer be practiced.
Simmons, Sylvia J. Personal correspondence, 6 January 2000.
Ms. Simmons is a lawyer. I talked to her on the phone, and she was a great help. I told her about the case, gave her the name of the case, and told her about it. She faxed me information she found in a law book about the case, and other related cases. She was extremely helpful.
Primary Sources
Books, articles, artifacts, and documents
Answer of Westminster School District of Orange County et. al. from Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County. Case filed May 5, 1945. Represented by Joel E. Ogle. 11 February, 2000 http://www.nara.gov.
I inferred from this document many things. First the district’s two main defenses were that the petition failed to “state any claim against the school district”, and that, above all, lacked jurisdiction. The districts state that they have not violated the 14th amendment. There was “no substantial federal question involved” and so the defendants felt it was a local state matter. More importantly, Ogle and the districts argued that since there was no law in California against segregation, they believed that they were not breaking any law. Second, the reason for segregation was to “benefit” both the Mexican and Anglo students. They had to be separated so that the Mexican pupils would be given instruction in English, since they were “unfamiliar with the English language”, and so the Anglo pupils would move faster in their studies. Mexicans were allowed to transfer from their school if they learned how to speak English. The school districts emphasized that the facilities provided were equal in all the schools. The school districts deny that they have refused admittance of a pupil of Mexican or Latin descent to a school within the districts, going against Gonzalo Mendez’s accusation.
Brief for the American Jewish Council, in the US Circuit Court of appeals 9th circuit.
“Brief of National Lawyers Guild and American Civil Liberties Union, amici curiae. Gonzalo Mendez vs. Westminster School District of Orange County.” October 1, 1945. 8 February 2000 http://www.nara.gov.
The brief states that the districts had violated the 14th Amendment by discriminating against persons of Mexican descent by systematically segregating pupils into separate school buildings. Further, the brief noted that the districts were in essence breaking their own code by segregating Mexican students, since their own code prohibited such practice. The brief cites numerous cases. It is important that this brief clearly states that the case is a class action suit with broad application to all children of Mexican and Latin descent. This class action suit was important later in the Brown decision. Further, the brief points out that in California law it is illegal to segregate based on the Spanish language, which was the practice of these school districts.
“County Schools to Appeal Decision In Segregation Case”. Orange Daily News, 21 February, 1946. Page 1
The Orange Daily News in this article reports the districts decision to appeal Judge McCormick’s decision. The school districts argued that the federal courts had no right of jurisdiction over school systems since they believed it was a state and local matter. The districts argued segregation was necessary because of the learning ability of the children.
Danker, Esther and Ralph, Oral Interview transcript, 29 August 1991. Stanford Library, Special Collections.
I inferred from this article, the attitudes toward Mexicans during the 1940’s. The Danker’s lived in the Westminster area at the time of the case. They said that most people thought of Mexicans in a negative way. As I read the interview, their personal bias toward Mexicans was coming into light.
“Dismissal Of Segregation Charges Denied”. Orange Daily News, 11 July, 1945. Page 1.
In this article, the four Orange county schools were denied dismissal of the injunction and presented their defense testimony that day. Superintendent James L. Kent, the newspaper states, defended segregation on social and educational grounds. He stresses that if all the schools were integrated, the Mexican kids, “would feel inferior” because of their clothing and economic status. The thesis that Kent wrote in 1939, was introduced as evidence by the Mendez attorney David Marcus, was used against Kent and the school districts.
Eisenhower, Dwight D. Diary entry January 25, 1956. 5 February, 2000. http://www.nara.gov.
I picked this source because it states President Eisenhower’s feelings toward desegregation of the public schools. In particular, he writes about the Brown decision, two years after the Supreme Court decision. Pres. Eisenhower favored the elimination of segregation. He saw the elimination as an achievement. He believed that equality of opportunity for every individual in America was one of the foundation stones of our system of Government. President Eisenhower wanted to continue the progress made.
“El Modena Cited For Contempt”. Orange Daily News, 28 September, 1946. Page 1.
In this article, the newspaper reported that the Federal court in Los Angeles filed contempt charges against District Supt. Harold Hammarsten of El Modena, a defendant in the case. The court filed contempt because the district flaunted the court by continuing the practice of illegal segregation.
“El Modena Notes”. Orange Daily News. 19 March, 1923. Stanford Library, Special Collection, Box 2, Folder 2.
In the short article, the school program for a school performance notes a Spanish surname student. This shows that still in 1923 the schools were not segregated. Segregation did not begin in earnest in this area until 1924.
“El Modena Notes” Orange Daily News. 10 September, 1923. Stanford Library, Special Collection, Box 2, Folder 2.
This article has the first mention of segregation in the El Modena district article mentioned a “Spanish school” referring to the Mexican-American school. The article has a very patronizing tone to the writing.
“El Modena has new school ready for use”. Orange Daily News. 4 April,1923. Stanford Library, Special Collection, Box 2, Folder 2.
The article states how the new Roosevelt Elementary School was a duplicate of the present school, Lincoln Elementary. The article doesn’t mention segregation just mentions rapid growth of students.
Gobbel, Marge and JD. Oral interview by Christopher Arriola on 8-15-91. Stanford Library, Special Collection, Box 3, folder 2.
The Gobbels grew up during the segregated period. They discussed how the two schools were close and recess was at different times. They explained how the Mexican-American children could only use the public pool on Mondays because the pool was drained on Monday night.
Gomez, Daniel, Oral interview on 7-26-1991 by Christopher Arriola. Stanford Library, Special Collection: Arriola Materials, Box 3, Folder 2.
Mr. Gomez talks about growing up in El Modena. When asked about the two schools, Roosevelt and Lincoln, the only thing nice about the Lincoln school (Mexican school) that Mr. Gomez remembered was the auditorium. The schools were basically on the same lot. They shared the same playground. However, the children never shared the same recess even though they attended schools only yards apart. The desks and books were old and beaten up, often they were discarded items from the white school, Roosevelt. Mr. Gomez felt that the community feared Hammersten, the El Modena Superintendent, who believed in segregation by appearance. Mr. Gomez said there was integration after the Mendez. The desegregation occurred in his memory with few problems.
Gunther, O.E. Letter to Board of Supervisors, 29 June,1937. Stanford Library, Special Collection, Arriola Materials: Box 3, Folder
In his letter, Mr. Gunther talks about how the term “Americanization” word was dropped from the description of education practices for Mexican-Americans. Instead the new terminology was adult education for Mexicans which stressed personal care and hygiene for foreigners.
Hill, Herbert and Greenberg, Jack. Citizen’s Guide to Desegregation: A Study of Social and Legal Change in American Life. Boston: The Beacon Press. 1955.
The author’s of this book worked for the NAACP at that time. They list five major school segregation cases decided on by the Supreme Court at the same time as Brown. The cases are: The South Carolina Case, The Kansas Case (Brown), The Delaware Case, The Virginia Case, and the District of Columbia Case. I found the “Legal Theory of the Cases” very interesting. Hill and Greenberg note three main arguments: 1. “The equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits the states to establish classifications only if they were based on real differences pertinent to lawful legislative objectives.” 2. “ The equal-protection clause also requires equality…segregation inflicts mental harm on Negro children, segregated education is inherently inferior,” and 3. “The schools itself were physically unequal… only way to make it equal was to integrate schools.” I found this book interesting because it was written in 1955, one year after the decision was made to desegregate all schools in the United States.
“Jess Martinez Close Winner in Hot Contest at El Modena” Orange Daily News. 22 May, 1948. Stanford Library, Special Collection, Box 2, Folder 2.
Mr. Martinez was elected to the school board. For the first time somebody with a Spanish surname was elected to the school board. This shows change in attitude both in the white community and Hispanic. It also shows the rising political power of Hispanics in the community.
Kass, Jeff. “Activists of Latinos Win Belated Honor”. Los Angeles Times, 29 September, 1997. Page 1, Metro.
I used this as a primary source because it talks about the naming of a Santa Ana school in honor of Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez. Felicitas was overwhelmed with happiness because her family’s struggle was finally recognized after 50 years of remaining dormant and forgotten.
“L.A. Federal Judge Issues Injunction Against Local Schools”. Orange Daily News, 20 February, 1946. Page 1.
The article reports the ruling of Federal Judge Paul McCormick. Judge McCormick ruled in favor of Gonzalo Mendez. He ruled that segregation based on race or nationality violated the 14th amendment of the constitution and ordered an injunction against the four Orange County school districts—Westminster, El Modena, Santa Ana, and Garden Grove. McCormick states that the “evidence clearly shows that Spanish-speaking children are retarded in learning English by lack of exposure because of segregation”, and that it “fosters antagonisms in the children and suggests inferiority among them where none exists”.
“Local Schools Lose Court Plea: Segregation Of Students Held Illegal”. Orange Daily News. 14 April, 1947. Page 1.
This article reported that the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld Judge McCormick’s ruling. The Supreme Court had ruled a previous case of segregation involving Orientals and whites legal, Marcus argued that the segregation in this case was illegal because there was not racial segregation due to that fact both were Caucasian. It’s amazing to me that the case hinged on the idea that actually upheld segregation. Amazingly, Marcus used the argument that it was not a racial case, that the Mexican and white children were both Caucasian and this was even more dangerous because it could lead to segregation based on nationality, religion, and social or economic position.
“Mexican Education Cost Revealed”. Orange Daily News. 12 October, 1936. Stanford Library, Special Collection, Box 2, Folder 2.
The article reports on the complaining about the costs of educating illegal alien children. The article supports the attempts to make law to make it illegal to hire an illegal. Ironically half of the Mexicans are illegal in Orange County. Yet the county depended on the labor force they provided to harvest the crops.
“Minutes of the El Modena Elementary School District October 9, 1946”, Stanford Library, Special Collection, Box 3, Folder 1.
At this meeting there was a group of parents concerned about the segregation issues. The parents and the school board talked about how they were going to eliminate segregation. Hammersten stated how he was opposed integration. This meeting was held the week before the citation for not following the order for injunction by refusing to create and implement integration plans.
McWilliams, Carey “Is Your Name Gonzalez?” The Nation, 15 March 1947.
This article was written a month before the decision in the 9th circuit court. In 1947 Mc Williams writes that Judge McCormick felt that if they were retarded in the English it was because of the way they were taught. “If this case reaches the supreme court it would be the death now of Jim Crow in education” the court was forced to examine the social and educational consequences of segregated schools. Mc Williams mentions the Brief of the American Jewish Congress as an analysis of the social affects. He elaborates on that brief thoroughly. He states that about the case that… “It was filed because rank-and-file citizens of Mexican descent in Southern California realized that they have long since had enough”.
McWilliams, Carey. North From Mexico. New York: Greenwood Press. 1948.
This book is interesting. It was published one year after the Circuit Court’s decision on the Mendez case. It gives background on the case. McWilliams states that Gonzalo Mendez didn’t want “his Sylvia, Gonzalo, and Geronimo growing up with hatred in their hearts for the children that went to the beautiful school.” The author notes that the school code permitted segregation of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and Mongolian children, but said nothing about Mexicans or Negroes.(sic) Without any determined resistance, the segregation of Mexicans was rationalized and institutionalized. If the community had resisted earlier and were aware of the injustice, the community might have prevented the segregation in the first place. It wasn’t until years later that they began to resist this injustice. The author also notes and makes reference to a previous court decision, In re. Rodriguez, 81 Fed 337. This case was one of Marcus’ main arguments. In this case, it had been determined that Mexicans of Spanish descent and mixed Spanish and Indian descent were considered ‘white persons’ in the eyes of the law. Marcus argued that segregation of Mexicans cannot be legal because in technical terms they were not the same race.
Manuel, Herschel T. The Education of Mexican and Spanish-Speaking Children in Texas. University of Texas, Austin: The Fund for Research in the Social Sciences, 1930.
This book shows the educational philosophy of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. The philosophy was that the Mexican-American child needed separate educational facilities because of language deficits as well as educational deficits. The authors quoted the new use of IQ testing as justification with low scores of Mexican children.. The book showed some pictures that today are funny in a sad way, “ These Mexican Children are happily enrolled in public school. America’s greatest opportunity.” The attitude is often patronizing.
“Mexican Students To Be Unchanged”. Orange Daily News, 13 September, 1946. Page 1.
The article reported that the four school districts in the case: Westminster, Santa Ana, El Modena, and Garden Grove had failed to integrate the students since the ruling of Judge McCormick. The reason was that they were waiting for the decision of their appeal and were advised the Deputy County Councilman, George F. Holden, that until it was settled, to make no changes in the custom of segregation.
“Outlying Schools Opening Tuesday Ready for Work” Orange Daily News, 8 September, 1923. Stanford Library, Special Collection, Box 2, Folder 2.
The old school will continue to offer manual and vocational training. This points to emphasis on vocational education as the main educational option for Mexican-American children. The school also had a modified schedule to meet the needs of children who worked in the fields.
Petition from Mendez et. al. v. Westminster School District of Orange County. Case filed March 2, 1945. Represented by David Marcus. Accessed 11 February, 2000. http://www.nara.gov.
From reading this petition, I discovered that Gonzalo Mendez was not the only plaintiff. There were four other families involved: the Guzman, Palomino, Estrada, and Ramirez families. It was not only the Westminster District they filed against but also the Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and El Modena school districts. The petitioners alleged that they were being segregated against by those school districts due to racial prejudices and that their 14th amendment rights were being denied. David Marcus, going against Plessy v. Ferguson argued that the facilities at the “Mexican school” Hoover and at the Anglo 17th Street School, were not at all equal and that separate itself was unequal.
Marcus also cites a book written by James Kent the superintentent of Garden Grove which outlined the ‘Mexican problem’. Its very biased tone and point of view was used cleverly by Marcus to incriminate Kent and his district.
Rodriguez, Vince. Oral interview by Christopher Arriola on
7-23-91. Stanford Library, Special Collection Arriola Papers, Box 3 folder 2.
Mr. Rodriguez talks about the low pay for Mexicans working in the fields and packing houses. He went to school in Fullerton and while his school was not segregated they had daily inspection for lice. This emphasis on hygiene was one of the themes of the racial segregation and bias. The constant inspections made the Mexican-American children feel inferior.
Quintana, Annie, Oral interview by Chris Arriola, 7-26-91, Stanford Library, Special Collection Arriola Papers, Box 3 folder 2.
Ms. Quintana was an American Indian, who was born in 1917. Her children were affected by the Mendez case. She didn’t feel segregated. She personally liked the vocational education classes like needlework and home economics, which she was taught at her school. She reaffirmed that WW2 was a turning point in the Mexican-American community. It changed attitudes. She moved her children to a Catholic school, because she didn’t want her children placed in the so-called retarded class due to language difficulties. She stated that segregation was based on surnames such as just because a child has a Spanish last name the child would be considered Mexican-American even if Native American.
“School Head Upholds Pupil Segregation”. Orange Daily News, 10 July, 1945.page 1.
The Orange Daily Register reports that Harris, superintendent of the Westminster school district, told a federal court that day saying that segregation of Mexican school children was because of a “language handicap” and therefore was “definitely democratic”. He says in answer to David Marcus, the Mendez attorney, which the teachers at Hoover School were qualified and defended segregation simply because of the supposed language gap between the two races. The school board goes against Harris and decides to unite the two schools. Through the article the author mentions the racial attitudes of all four districts.
“Schools Face Injunction over Segregation of Mexican Pupils”. Orange Daily News, 3 March, 1945. page 1.
This article was published shortly after the case was filed. The newspaper stated that Marcus the attorney for the Mendez family cited a brochure written by Superintendent James L. Kent of Garden Grove. Ironically, while Kent had denied any racial segregation, his own brochure proved otherwise.
“Schools tell Segregation Policies”. Orange Daily News, 5 March, 1945. Page 1.
This article focused on James L. Kent, his brochure, and the school districts segregation policies. It backfired as one of the principal arguments in the school districts plea against discrimination in the case. The newspaper states that Kent had talked to Marcus about the brochure and said it was necessary to segregate because most children of Mexican decent can not speak English have no “proper health habits” and need “training in morals, manners and cleanliness”. Superintendent of Schools Frank Henderson of Santa Ana says the reason for segregating schools in his district was that segregation was a “well-established local policy”.
“Segregation of Mexican Pupils Aired in Court”. Orange Daily News, 7 July, 1945. Page 1.
In this article Federal Court Judge Paul McCormick considered an injunction suit to halt segregation in the Mendez case. Superintendent Henderson of Santa Ana is again mentioned in this article admitting segregation orders were issued for Mexicans. He claimed they were encouraged by language differences that prevented Mexican children from progressing at in equal rate to those of Anglo descent.
“Segregation of School Children Hit in Court”. Orange Daily News, 12 July, 1945. Page 1.
This article talks about the important testimony from Ralph Deals, head of the anthropology department at UCLA on behalf of Mendez et. al.. He states that racial segregation in public schools is harmful for both Mexican and Anglo children. Deals says that the disadvantage is that segregation reinforces stereotypes of inferiority and superiority in the population. He refutes the defense when he says “the best way to learn any foreign language is to go among people who speak that language”and concludes that learning English is not accomplished by segregation.
Torres, Bob. Oral Interview transcript, 16 August 1991. Stanford Library, Special Collections.
Bob Torres was a resident of El Modena at the time of the Mendez case. He attended one of the segregated schools in El Modena , the “Mexican school”, Lincoln. In the interview he states that segregation in El Modena was established in 1924. It was interesting in the interview to read that while the Mexican children were being separated because they spoke Spanish, that they weren’t allowed to speak Spanish in school. Mr. Torres says that Mexican kids were not encouraged to finish high school. If they didn’t graduate, they would end up working in the fields. This was further seen in Mr. Torres’ account of a school board meeting in which Superintendent Hammerstein argued to end segregation and other school board members said no. They argued “if we educated the Mexicans better, who would pick our crops?”
“Transcript of Mendez v. Westminster Trial” 1945.
The transcript was invaluable for the performance. I used some exact words from Felicitas. It really helped me understand her and the trial. I also was able to grasp the school district’s case. From the questioning I learned how language became a primary issue in the case and how Marcus worked to diffuse this issue and actually take advantage of it. I was able to read a letter from Harris that Marcus introduced into the proceedings that showed the racist bias of Westminster Schools’ Superintendent Harris.
Treff, Simon, The Education of Mexican Children in Orange County, Masters thesis USC June 1934
The educational community supported Mr. Treff’s thesis and its acceptance showed how the educational administration supported segregation. Treff talks about how instructional methods should be adapted to the personality of the Mexican child. It has a patronizing attitude, which supported the concept of different facilities as a positive vehicle for education. Treff doesn’t see the segregation as a problem while he did state that the buildings for Mexican-American students should be better.
Valencia, Oscar. Oral Interview transcript, 23 August 1991. Stanford Library, Special Collections. Box 3, Folder 2.
Mr. Valencia said the opposite of Bob Torres. He said that they spoke Spanish in the schools all the time. Mr. Valencia reinforced the idea that being in the military in WW2 changed his attitude about segregation. Before the war, he didn’t think about it much. “We were completely naïve about segregation”. His take on Hammerstein was that he was racist, and that he was ousted because of the Mendez case.
Veverka, Madilene M. Letter to Margaret Livingston, Orange County Librarian. 21 February 1921. Stanford Library, Special Collections. Box 3, Folder 1.
Miss Veverka stressed that she was concerned that the normal schools have ignored the Non-English problem in the training of the teachers. Miss Veverka works for the Los Angeles County in response to a request for bilingual materials. This letter shows the attitude and education resources available in 1921.
Secondary sources
Books and artifacts, interviews
Arriola, Christopher J. “Knocking on the Schoolhouse Door, Mendez v. Westminster, Public Education, and Mexican Americans in the 1940’s”. La Raza Law Journal, vol.8, no. 2, 1995. 166+
Arriola wrote a very in depth account of the legal issues of the case. One of the interesting things that I read in his thesis was the attitudes of Mexican-American soldiers after the war. They rejected segregation at home, and they were not going to settle for a “second class citizenship”. Their attitudes and feelings provided and sparked community support for the Mendez case. Arriola maintains that one of the main reasons for segregation was the maintenance of an uneducated labor force. He gives background, which I already know, about the case.
Arriola, Christopher J. “ A Landmark Little Noted – Until Today”. The Los Angeles Times, April 14, 1997. Editorial.
This was written by the author who wrote the thesis, “Knocking on the Schoolhouse Door: Mendez v. Westminster, Equal Protection, Public Education, and Mexican-American in the 1940’s”, in the La Raza Law Journal. Arriola mostly talked about how Mendez v. Westminster is a nearly forgotten case, and so he describes the case. He states the connection of Earl Warren and the segregation laws Warren repealed with the Anderson Law of 1947.
Blaustein, Albert P. and Ferguson, Clarence Clyde. Desegregation and the Law. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, 1957.
This book talks about the earlier cases prior to Brown involving Negro students in the South. However, in the Brown case, one of the cases cited by the government in support of the concept that the Brown was a class action suit was the Mendez case. The case was used because the court applied the injunction not only against the plaintiff school districts but made a broader application to all school districts that segregated children of Mexican descent.
Butler, Bill. “El Modena Ruling Changed School Segregation Policy” Orange Daily News. 27 June, 1984.
This article helped Arriola find the people that he interviewed. The article talks about the case in general and its importance and how it stopped segregation.
Carter, Thomas P. Mexican-Americans in School: A History of Educational Neglect. College Entrance Examination Board. New York. 1970.
The author writes about the point of views of the 1940’s when he describes the “Mexican problem”, so it was called by the schools. The classes given to Mexican children in school were mostly vocational and manual arts training. The book asserts that segregation, especially in the early grades, was recommended and commonly established. Also, in studies Mexican children were considered mentally inferior.
De Martino, Marjorie.ed. A Family Changes History: Mendez v. Westminster. University of California, Irvine. 1998.
This was a great source. This is a booklet made by UCI in honor of the Mendez family. It celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the case. Ms. Mendez gave me this booklet when I personally interviewed her. She even autographed it. Ms. Mendez and her mother, Felicitas, contributed in the making of this booklet. Much of the information Ms. Mendez told me in our interview was in the booklet: attitudes of the time, her rejection by the 17th Street School, her mother and father’s courageous struggle, and the result of the case. I copied pictures of her mother and father, and used them in my performance.
Donato, Ruben. The Other Struggle For Equal Schools. New York: State University of New York Press. 1997.
The book stressed the issues related to the schooling of Mexican-Americans. He characterizes the schooling of Mexican Americans in the first half of the twentieth century as a means of social control. The author describes the process of segregation and “Americanization”. The only way that Mexican children would fit into society was to be Americanized. This meant they had to “act like Anglos”.
Duram, James C. A Moderate Among Extremists: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Desegregation Crisis. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 1981.
I used this book because of the history of school desegregation, Thurgood Marshall’s background, and the NAACP role. It had very little about Mexican segregation or desegregation, but I found an interesting fact about the Plessy decision. One judge refuted strongly the “separate but equal” doctrine. Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the doctrine was “a mask for the subordination of the black person”. He strongly argued that the United States constitution “was color-blind”.
s
“Education is a Basic Human Right”. Accessed Febrary 6, 2000. http://www.afionline.org.
This is a website designed by the two artists, Alma Lopez and Noni Olabisi, who painted the mural commemorating the Mendez and Brown decisions. This mural is in the Los Angeles Mesa Library. I used pictures of the mural in my performance. I took the pictures when I visited the library. The mural depicts the connection between Mendez and Brown and how education is a basic human right. The artists did a fantastic job on the mural and helped the community see the connection.
Gonzalez, Gilbert G., Chicano Education in the Era of Segregation. Philadelphia : Balch Institute Press, 1990.
It was interesting to read the information Professor Gonzalez wrote in his book. He mentions that Marcus was experienced in desegregation cases, and won those cases. It was interesting to note that Gonzalo was so rapped up in the case that he nearly became Marcus’ assistant.
Haas, Mary Lisbeth, PhD. “The Barrios of Santa Ana: Community, Class, and Urbanization, 1850-1947”. University of California, Irvine, Doctorate Thesis, 1985.
Dr. Haas writes that the
Hernandez, Greg. “Mendez died Content that Accomplishments will Live”. Los Angeles Times. 16 April, 1998. Part B, page 1+.
This article marks the passing of Felicitas Mendez. In the article, Sylvia Mendez said that there was not even a footnote in the textbooks of California. However, recently her mother was proud that people were finally recognizing the struggle she and her husband had gone through to file the Mendez case. In this article, Sylvia recounts how her mother was passionate about this issue, while her father was more analytical and concerned with the constitutional issues.
Lopez, Antointte Sedillo. “ Educating Our Children on Equal Terms::The Failure of the De Jure/De Facto Analysis in Desegregation Cases.” Chicano Law Review, vol. 7, 1984. Page 1+.
This article explains in depth the difference between de facto and de jure segregation. In discussing this, the article shows the shifts in the court’s opinion from Plessy through the post-Brown cases.
“Mendez v. Westminster Case”. Discover Orange County 2000: Mendez v. Westminster Case. Accessed February 7, 2000. http. //www.discoveroc2000.
This web page recognized the Mendez v. Westminster case as a millennium moment. It tells the story on one side and on the other it has Sylvia Mendez, Gonzalo’s daughter, reminiscing about the case. Sylvia says that what her mother and father did was not just for her brothers and herself, it was for everyone. Her family is trying to carry on the legacy.
Motley, Constance Baker, “ Standing on his Shoulders: Thurgood Marshall’s Early Career”. Howard Law Journal, 1991.
Judge Motley writes that the two important cases, Sweatt and McLaurin, which were filed to stop segregation at the college level were often thought to be precedents to Brown. Motley states that it was actually Mendez, because Marshall used many of the same arguments he used in his brief for Mendez in his Brown case. Furthermore, Mendez case was filed about a public school system not college level. This application to public schooling was an important break through which would open the door for Brown.
Newman, Maria. “A Person Gets Tired of Being Pushed Around”. Los Angeles Times, 21 May 1989. Pg. 22+.
Newman mentions that the Mendez v. Westminster case was 8 years before the Brown case. In the article, the story of Soledad (Sally) Vidaurri’s confrontation with the 17th school is told. The reporter states that this incident was too much for Gonzalo who then filed the case for his children and all the children of Mexican-American descent. Felicitas shares how they were “tired of being pushed around.” Furthermore, the article points out that McCormick’s ruling was a landmark, because it was the first time a federal judge anywhere denounced racial segregation in public schools. It is interesting that in 1947, the Yale Law Review wrote that the Mendez case was a prediction that the Supreme Court would be presented with a case of segregation involving schools within the next few years. In addition, Thurgood Marshall, a young NAACP lawyer, filed the friend-of-the-court brief with the appeal. The importance of this brief was stressed.
One amazing aspect of this article was that the Mendez’s youngest daughter did not know about the case until she attended college. She was born after the case was appealed.
Reza, H.G. “Historic School Bias Lawsuit Nearly Forgotten”. Los Angeles Times, 10 September 1996.
This article commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of the Mendez case. Geromino, Gonzalo, Jr. and Sylvia, the Mendez children, and their mother Felicitas Mendez recollect about the case. The reporter stated that the justification for segregation was the supposed language gap. He also mentions Judge McCormick’s decision, which ruled that the Orange County Schools segregation violated the 14th Amendment. The Mendez children expressed that their father never fully understood the role he played in such a key civil rights struggle. It is interesting to note that the Yale Law Journal and the NAACP predicted in 1947 that this ruling would lead to a Supreme Court ruling on school segregation nationwide within three years. Ironically, the Orange County School Districts did not appeal the Circuit Court’s judgment, thus preventing Mendez from going all the way to the Supreme Court. If they had appealed, Mendez might have instead been the “Brown decision” for education. This case is nearly forgotten. Felicitas Mendez wonders why her husband hasn’t been recognized for what he did to improve this country’s race relations and civil rights. This is the article which led me to find Sylvia Mendez for my interview.
Stephan, Walter G. School Desegregation, Past, Present, and Future. Plenum Press, New York. 1980.
This book gives the history of segregation. Plessy v. Ferguson interpreted the 14th amendment in saying that it was all right to separate as long as it’s equal. The most successful anti-segregation cases were at the college level. Mendez was not cited as a precedent to Brown, but at the time of the case, Marshall was chief counsel of the NAACP. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief, and so is connected to the Mendez case. This book states that Marshall quoted social scientists as part of his argument in Brown v. Board. I’m surmising that he used the same ideas from the social scientists in Mendez, like Ralph Deals, in a case that occurred in 1948 in Oklahoma.
Thomas, Brook ed.. Plessy v. Ferguson. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997.
This book provided background information on the landmark case, Plessy v. Ferguson which made segregation legal as long as equal facilities existed. This case was used to justify segregation until it was overthrown by the Brown v. Board of Education decision which made ruled that separate was inherently unequal.
Westcott, John. “1945 Case Ended Separate Schools For OC Hispanics”. Orange County Register, November 6, 1989. pg.-Orange County Life
The article explained the case and mentioned the struggle in the beginning for the Mendez to gather support. The League of Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, later joined the effort contrary to popular belief. The case gave the Mexican American community at the time, real social and political maturity.
“Westminster School / Seventeenth Street School. A History of Mexican-Americans in California: Historical Sites.” February 7, 2000. http.//www.crnps.gov.
The article in this web page discussed the Anderson Bill. The Anderson Bill repealed Sections 8003 and 8004 of the California Educational Code, the last school segregation laws. Governor Earl Warren signed the Anderson Bill on June 14, 1947. The web page states that, “while Mendez v. Westminster could not be cited as a direct precedent for the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954, in which the Supreme Court finally reversed the “separate by equal” doctrine, much of the social and educational theory expressed by Judge McCormick anticipated Earl Warren’s historic opinion in the Brown case”. The case stopped de jure segregation. It was interesting to know that school board members in Riverside, because of McCormick’s decision, voluntarily integrated their schools.
Wollenberg, Charles, “ Mendez v. Westminster, Race, Nationality and Segregation in California Schools”. California Historical Quarterly. Winter 1974, vol. LIII, no. 4. p.324+
This article gives an historic overview of segregation in California leading the Mendez case. In 1855, school funds in the state of California were based on the census count of white children. This system of funding promoted segregation and prejudice. Moulder, the State Superintendent used this funding to legally promote white only education. Over the years various minority fought for educational rights. The Chinese in 1885 in San Francisco fought for the right of public education even it was segregated. In 1890’s a group of black parents won the right of black children to attend mixed schools. Still Education codes 8003 and 8004 established segregation of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and Mongolian children. Neither codes specifically mentioned Mexican-Americans the group that was most often segregated.
Wollenberg pointed out three main factors that justified segregation in the early 1900’s in California: community pressure (racism), education philosophy (rationalism that separate education was beneficial) and psychological justification (IQ testing).
Wollenberg states that W.W.II was an important turning point in the Mexican-American community. There was a growth of the Mexican-American middle class given groups financial success. Additionally there was increased ethnic pride due to the number of heroes who fought so well during the war. This led to belief that the community would no longer accept second class citizenship.
Zohn, Mary Ann. “Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez: Regardless Of Lineage”. Lessons of a Century, Faces of a Century. December 1999.
In this looking back through the century article, the Mendez v. Westminster case is remembered. It tells that Felicitas managed the farm her husband and herself owned, so that Gonzalo, her husband could work on the case full time. An important little known fact was mentioned in this article: Thurgood Marshall, the top lawyer of the NAACP, who later represented Brown in Brown v. Board, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. The reporter quoted Judge Paul McCormick in his 1946 ruling saying that the American system of public education must be “open to all regardless of lineage”. Most importantly this article make the statement that Mendez v. Westminster not only stopped segregation in California, but in all the nation in 1954 because it helped “point the way” to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
|
|
|
|
