On 187, the Caretakers of Ideas Were Afraid to Speak Their Minds : Schoolteachers who supported the initiative kept quiet for fear of being labeled racist or losing favor with the administration.

The 1992 presidential campaign was the occasion of lively debate in our teachers lounge. Posters supporting all the candidates were plastered on classroom walls as prompts for civics lessons. Teachers heatedly argued campaign issues, then shared coffee and doughnuts.

Not so in November, 1994, when Proposition 187 was the hottest item on the ballot.

Throughout the campaign, teachers were deluged with anti-Proposition 187 rhetoric. It was mailed to our homes by the teachers unions and state teachers organizations and to our schools from district offices.

According to the union propaganda, the measure would turn teachers into spies and cost thousands of California teachers their jobs. Districts sent the message that it would harm children and cost the schools millions in federal dollars. I couldn’t tell the difference between the privately financed political propaganda and the taxpayer-supported informational leaflets.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the campaign to me was the fact that although many teachers supported 187, they were afraid to say so even among their colleagues. The one-sidedness of the information they were receiving chilled their willingness to hold a frank discussion. This is a sad commentary whatever you think of the amendment.

I spoke recently with teachers from seven geographically and ethnically diverse schools. Although each was willing to talk with me, none wanted me to print their name or their school’s. Whether they taught in the East Valley, North Hills, Sherman Oaks, Las Virgenes, Long Beach, Saugus or Downtown, they all reported no teacher debate on 187.

*

That didn’t mean there were no political debates at all. Teachers hadn’t lost their voices nor stopped having opinions. Proposition 186 (health care reform) and the Wilson-Brown and Feinstein-Huffington races all had vocal advocates on both sides. But Proposition 187 was taboo.

When I asked pro-187 teachers why they hadn’t expressed their opinions, they said they were afraid--afraid of being labeled racist, of student claims of discrimination to explain low grades, of their colleagues’ long memories. Some teachers have not spoken since the contentious teachers strikes in 1971 and 1989. They were afraid of reprisals from their administrators and school boards. So they were silent. But when they went to the polls, the silent teachers were heard: no services for illegal immigrants.

I haven’t read any exit poll statistics on how teachers voted on 187, but from dozens of private conversations, I suspect they voted in the same percentages as did the rest of the electorate--about three to two in favor.

Reasons for supporting the proposition varied. A second-grade bilingual teacher voted for 187 on the grounds that bilingual education doesn’t work. The extra federal funds schools receive are for teachers aides, coordinators, testing and administrative services they wouldn’t need if they tossed bilingual education out. There’s no net financial gain and, in her opinion, a net education loss. But she wasn’t about to announce that the emperor is naked.

A Saugus teacher said: “I’m tired of seeing Mexican flags. I would love to have my classroom size dropped for American kids--of all colors.” In his faculty it was “OK to be against it, but if we voted for it, we were racist.”

A Long Beach special-education teacher said she feels guilty about having voted for Proposition 187 because it might hurt those few students who have come from war-torn countries in Central America. For the majority, she’s tired of paying for services for people who break the law.

A West Valley high school teacher felt that no matter what he said in support of 187, he would be considered wrong.

In Los Angeles the district superintendent directed teachers not to voice their opinions in the classroom. Teachers carried that directive to the faculty lounge, afraid to speak even among their own colleagues--unless, that is, they were against 187. Then they spoke to student groups in open forums, in their classrooms and in the teachers’ cafeterias, without any reprimand from the administration.

*

When Board of Education President Mark Slavkin announced the district’s filing of a lawsuit challenging Proposition 187, many of my colleagues were (quietly) enraged. Teachers are paying for the lawsuit with their continued 2% pay cut. Could they voice their opposition to Slavkin and the board? Not, they felt, if they want workable class schedules, perks like a classroom computer or a friendly relationship with their administrators.

Many educators question the purely humanitarian motives claimed by the Establishment. Could it be that some teachers are concerned about their jobs more than about the kids? Might the union be concerned about the loss of teacher positions and membership dues? Is the district worried about losing federal funds that help support an already bloated administration?

As long as the education Establishment opposes Proposition 187, its supporters, to be politically correct, must remain silent.

And that’s a shame.