Schools Dispute May Be Lesson in Finding Common Ground

An acquaintance asked me why, in light of the recent Los Angeles school board controversy, Latinos and Jews didn’t sit down together to try to work out issues between them. This idea sounds quite simple and even somewhat realistic. This is not a Latino-Jewish conflict, despite the efforts of some to portray it as such. Yet these events do raise the opportunity for Jews and Latinos to launch a serious dialogue.

It is important to note that, in this city with its large Latino population and the presence of a significant Jewish community, there are very few points of formal institutional connection. Intergroup relationships just don’t happen; they evolve and are nurtured over time, building trust and sharing experiences during such a process. In my research on Latino-Jewish relations in Los Angeles, I noted a number of factors that could promote the evolution of a better relationship between these communities. Of significance to the future of this city and for the welfare of Latinos and Jews, we need to confront some hard realities.

The first is associated with power. In the case of Latinos, it is the desire to be recognized and included as a legitimate player in this city. For Jews, it is the question of retaining influence while at the same time acknowledging that there are demographic and political shifts emerging within this city and state that will inevitably lessen the Jewish political presence.

Another critical factor requires understanding of the historic contexts that bring groups into the world of politics. For Jews and Latinos, access to the public square has been a common struggle of acquiring influence. Jews have encountered barriers throughout their historical journey; Latinos have understood the idea of being the “outsider” only too well.

From an organizational perspective, these communities are structured so as to make the opportunities for interaction more complicated. Jews have developed a complex system of community institutions, linked together by a set of shared goals and through the presence of interlocking directorates. Latinos, whose organizational system is still emerging, have not created a similar institutional linkage. The significant influence of the Catholic Church, the presence of several key institutions and the important role played by Latino elected officials are the key centers of power for them.

If there are certain institutional impediments, there also exists a host of opportunities that might well offer the two communities the chance to establish some common ground. Both cultures place special emphasis on the family and share voting patterns around several key issues and candidates. Likewise, they share the experience of being “diaspora” cultures, resulting in their each constructing similar institutional ties to their “homeland.”

About 50 years ago, these two communities did effectively coexist in the Boyle Heights area. It was at that time that Jews and Latinos came together around electing the first Latinos to public office, implementing civil rights initiatives in housing and jobs and, somewhat later, in organizing on behalf of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers.

Yet today, when these two communities intersect it is only on an incidental basis and seen through the prism of an employer-employee relationship, both in the workplace and on the domestic level. They are separated by space and place based on a divide that exists around economic factors and geographic realities. As a result, distorted images of each other exist that feed fear and distrust instead of opportunities for cooperation.

There has been some attempt to create a Latino-Jewish confrontation out of the current school superintendent crisis. While the critical actors in this drama are indeed Latinos and Jews, the key considerations for all the parties ought to be the district’s future welfare. We shouldn’t allow this crisis to be addressed through the lens of group conflict. Victory or vindication ought not to be seen in the context of outmaneuvering the other constituency but rather in understanding the necessity for a community dialogue.

What is urgently called for is a commitment to begin a dialogue that engages the leadership of our two communities, along with others, and defines how we want this city to prosper and flourish. American cities that are flourishing do so, in part, because their school systems meet the expectations of parents and the business sector, among others.