Protest Over Chicano Studies

As an alumnus from UCLA, I fully agree with your editorial’s perception (May 13) that the establishment of a Chicano studies department “would be seen as elevating the status of Chicano studies at UCLA” and that “it seems only logical that there should be a Chicano studies department at the most prestigious public university in the city with the nation’s largest Mexican-American community.”

One of the key and larger issues behind the call for the establishment of a Chicano studies department is the reality that, for too long, Chicano studies programs and (ethnic studies overall) have been marginalized at UCLA. In 1991, when an academic committee proposed a moratorium on the Chicano studies major, it was revealed that the major lacked funding and that the program’s only counselor was a volunteer. Further, there was not (and there has not been) any incentive for Chicano/Latino faculty to teach in such a program.

While the administration proposes that it does support a Chicano studies program with the use of Chicano/Latino faculty from various departments, it does not propose how to deal with the issue that individual departments have their own agenda and perceptions as to the legitimacy of Chicano studies as an academic field.

In this context, it makes sense to establish a Chicano studies department with a group of faculty who have real power in the tenure decision-making process and who can serve as an anchor of support to those faculty who are already positioned in other departments.

JOSE CALDERON, Asst. Professor

Sociology and Chicano Studies

Pitzer College, Claremont