1893: state segregation law for schools still defines “colored” as “Negro ancestry” / BB&W, 129
Second, Plessy v. Ferguson did not apply to Mexicans, inasmuch as they were officially recognized as “white.” In Texas, for example, the legislature passed a law in 1893, six years before the Supreme Court mandated “separate but equal” facilities for blacks and whites, that required separate schools for the state’s white and “colored” children. The statute defined colored as “all persons of mixed blood descended from Negro ancestry.” Thus Mexicans in the state were segregated by custom rather than by law, and school districts defended the practice on the grounds that Mexican children did not speak English and spent part of the school year with their families as migrant agricultural workers. When Mexican American civil rights activists were able to show that Mexican children were arbitrarily segregated, regardless of English-language facility, the courts generally ruled in favor of the plaintiff Mexican Americans.
Neil Foley, "Partly Colored or Other White: Mexican Americans and Their Problem with the Color Line," in Beyond Black and White: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the U.S. South and Southwest
, ed. Stephanie Cole and Alison M. Parker, 123-144 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 204), 129.
LULAC’s commitment was to improving the human condition for all within the Mexican community regardless of class, even nativity. Though the organization restricted membership to the native born, it did accept those who were naturalized (the organization argued that the foreign born had their defenders in the Mexican consul, but LULAC leaders worked closely with the consuls in cases involving Mexican nationals). Ideologically, LULAC sought to act upon old problems. LULACers still combated the entrenched racist sentiments holding that Mexicans were “unclean” and the Anglo contention that Mexican Americans were not white folks. In response, the organization launched efforts to secure civil liberties and access to opportunity by trying to overturn segregation; in their view the practice stood out as the most personal reminder that Anglo Americans considered Mexican Americans second-class citizens. Further, they fought to assert their contention that they were Caucasian, as LULACers did in 1936 when the U.S. Bureau of the Census ruled that Mexicans be identified as “non-whites.” Protest from LULAC councils across the state forced the Census Bureau to retract the categorization. Similar pressure exerted upon the Social Security Administration that same year forced the Social Security Board to accept the application of Mexican Americans as white.
Similarly, the league worked doggedly to pry open more opportunities in education. It initially challenged school segregation in the case of Independent School District, et al. v. Salvatierra (1931) arguing for an end to the deliberate segregation of Mexican children in Del Rio. A Texas Court of Civil Appeals ruled that arbitrary segregation was unjust but sided with school officials who contended that the students’ retention of the Spanish language made segregation necessary. Without funds to follow up on Salvatierra, LULAC pursued other tactics, such as going before school districts and conferring with administrators to argue for better teaching for Mexican-American children. To disseminate their faith in education, LULACers organized evening schools in barrios and conducted meetings that focused on the topic of U.S. citizenship. They also undertook fundraisers to subsidize the education of good student prospects who might become skilled workers, lawyers, doctors, and teachers.
De Leon, Mexican Americans in Texas, 102.
But newer middle-class organizations also surfaced out of el movimiento, among them the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), founded in 1968. Funded by government grants and private corporations, MALDEF–reflecting a posture between the old guard from the Mexican American Generation and the newer militancy–worked through the courts to protect Mexican-American rights. It assailed, for instance, practices that marred equal educational opportunities, such as discriminatory school funding or continued segregation. In so doing, it took several cases into the courts, among the most famous being Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District (1970).
As school officials utilized the accepted Mexican-American classification of “white” as a subterfuge in school desegregation and continued the pattern of excluding Mexican Americans from Anglo schools, lawyers for Mexican Americans moved away from the old claim that Mexican Americans were white people. Attorneys adopted the position that Mexican Americans must be recognized as an “identifiable ethnic group.” This new categorization would circumvent the ploy used by Anglo-controlled school boards of using Tejanos (classified as white) to “integrate” certain schools. The Mexican-American community was gratified when in June 1970, a federal district judge ruled that Mexican Americans could be considered an identifiable ethnic minority and that the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment applied to them. Though the case was appealed, in 1973 the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the separate legal status of Mexican Americans. For MALDEF, the decision provided an important legal mechanism for its desegregation cases.
Arnoldo de Leon, Mexican Americans in Texas, 129.
(footnotes to follow)
But his encounters with local communities were not always pleasant. In the primarily Catholic communities in which he preached, Protestantism was seen as worse than even the Papally condemned Masonry. A community dispute in Corpus Christi over the validity of local schools and their openness to Mexican-American students proved to be a thinly veiled “civil war” between community Catholics and community Protestants. The following interchange, between Santiago and the editor of a newspaper in Corpus Christi, Texas, early in his preaching career, shows evidence of this friction.
An article in the Spanish-language newspaper El Horizonte expressed doubt as to whether the public “American” schools would accept Mexican-American children, “tiempo perdido a mandar a nuestros niños a las escuelas americanas.” So Santiago, newly arrived to town with three school-age children, goes to see the mayor “con algún temor de ser avergonzado,” and asks him if this is true.
But the mayor assured me that not only would they receive Mexican children gladly in the public schools, but that he would personally accompany the parents to enroll the children, which is what he did with me…
Any honorable man and good citizen should pledge their efforts for the education of our youth. For only in this manner will the government end up having good citizens. But I see in this article complaints against the administrators of our public school system….
 With that letter, (and with his vocal presence in the community) he drew the ire of the editorial staff, and a long duel of newspaper letters followed between Santiago and Santos López, where Santiago writes “Usted no ha olido la doctrina de Cristo pues pertenece al sistema esparío de la iglesia romana” and Santos López responds, “¿Dónde aprendioacute; a espresarse así, don Santiaguito? ¿Sería en alguna cantina de San Antonio?” He also accuses Santiago of preaching falsehoods, because “it is all based on absurdities, a natural fruit of Protestant reform.” The arguments descend from there to a mocking verse about a Tafolla who “confuses error with truth … ignorance with science … and vice with virtue.” Much of their dispute over educational systems appears to be mere preface for the deeper argument between them–the conflict between the two religious traditions. By, in effect, “integrating” their mexicano religious community, Santiago upset the status quo, and challenged traditional community power structures.
Carmen Tafolla, “Epilogue,” A Life Crossing Borders: Memoir of a Mexican-American Confederate. Houston, Tex.: Arte Público Press. Edited by Carmen Tafolla and Laura Tafolla. 96-97 [91-106].
[ca. 1881? maybe a few years later?]