race&ethnicity 2-3 pages paper

Chiricú Journal, Vol. 3.2, pp. 59–76
Copyright © 2019 Trustees of Indiana University • doi:10.2979/chiricu.3.2.05

Spanish as a Tool of Latinx
Resistance against Repression
in a Hostile Political climate

Ana Sánchez-Muñoz, California State University, Northridge
Angélica Amezcua, Arizona State University

abstract: Spanish is the first or heritage language of many Latinxs in the
U.S., whether speakers are fluent in it or not. Even though Spanish is the
most frequently spoken language after English (U.S. Census), it continues
to be publicly repressed and stigmatized. Since the 2016 elections, there
has been an increase in anti-immigrant sentiment and Anglocentric
rhetoric, as well as an explicit attack on Spanish and bilingualism in the
U.S. Ironically, Spanish has functioned as a resource exclusively for those in
positions of power, for political or economic advantages, yet it is considered
unpatriotic to use Spanish to symbolize a positive Latino ethnic identity. In
this article we study Latinxs’ use of Spanish in public spaces since Trump
became president. We examine whether there has been a recent shift in the
attitudes of young Latinx heritage language speakers toward using Spanish.
Data from Arizona and California helps us shed light on how diverse
Latinx communities are negotiating language use in the face of immigrant
stress, especially as there have been increased racial attacks, linguistic
discrimination, and linguistic profiling since the last elections.

Keywords: Spanish as a heritage language, Hispanophobia, linguistic
attitudes, linguistic discrimination

This research examines Spanish language use in public spaces in the first 18
months of the Trump administration. In particular, we consider the impact of fear
on linguistic trends. The question we aim to address is whether there has been a
shift in attitudes toward Spanish use by Latinx youth given the current political
climate, including overt anti-Latinx and anti-Spanish sentiments by the current
administration. Recent research has examined the discursive practices of right-
wing populism (for example, Donald Trump’s campaign and platform) and ana-
lyzed the messages that attract voters to radical right-wing parties. The discourse
of a link between immigration and supposed crime and other types of social
unrest has played a particularly significant role in the rise of radical right-wing
groups in Europe and the U.S. Refugee crises and immigration issues have been
used to attract voters who wish to restrict immigration to their country (Rydgren,

Chiricú Journal, Vol. 3.260

2017; Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2017). In the United States, Mexican and Central
American migrants have recently been identified as especially problematic and
unwelcome by Trump and his followers.

This study hypothesizes that increased anti-immigrant sentiments may have
detrimental effects on Spanish maintenance, including language loss owing to
linguistic discrimination. The focus is on Latinx Spanish speakers, specifically,
those of Mexican or Central American descent living in two distinct commu-
nities: one in Los Angeles and one in Phoenix. California and Arizona share
some traits as far as their treatment of the Spanish language and its speakers:
Both states have a large Latinx population. Both have implemented restrictive
language policies in the past, for instance, Proposition 227 in California and
Proposition 203 in Arizona. However, the general climate and tolerance toward
the Latinx population is quite different in these two states and in particular in
these two cities. Examining these communities may yield interesting compari-
son data about how each is negotiating language use in the presence of linguistic
discrimination. Our study attempts to do so by looking at speakers’ ethnolin-
guistic identity, language attitudes, and language policies that affect the Latinx
population in both states.

Given our current political climate, this study is timely and relevant. It also
contributes to the growing body of research that has identified the “chilling-ef-
fect” on migrant and minority communities, that is, the inhibition or discour-
agement of the legitimate exercise of rights by the threat of legal sanction (Cruz
Nichols, LeBrón, & Pedraza, 2018). Many Latinxs may feel inhibited to use
their heritage language in public. Despite the vast research on Spanish in the
U.S. preceding this investigation, few studies have analyzed the potential effect
of fear on the use of Spanish in public spaces. It is important to examine how
attacks on one’s language affect the speaker’s sense of self and ethnic identity. In
fact, targeting a group’s language is in effect an assault on the people themselves.
As Gloria Anzaldúa has pointed out, “ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic
identity” (2007, p. 81). Linguistic discrimination is a form of racism, partic-
ularly as seen toward the Latinx community during the Trump campaign and
presidency.

Sánchez-Muñoz & Amezcua / Spanish as a Tool of Latinx Resistance 61

I am my language.
—Gloria Anzaldúa

Many Latinxs consider Spanish vital for the construction of their bilingual and
ethnic identity. In this case, we refer to Spanish as their heritage language (HL),
that is, the language of one’s family or community. It is important to clarify the
use of heritage language speaker (HLS) or heritage language learner (HLL) as
opposed to native speaker. A speaker of a “heritage language” is a person who,
according to Valdés (2001), “is raised in a home where a non-English language is
spoken” (p. 38). They may have varying degrees of fluency in the home language,
but HLSs are to some degree bilingual in English and the heritage language. These
bilingual and bicultural individuals are positioned within a language continuum
and their choice of language depends on sociocultural contexts as well as their con-
nection with the heritage language and culture.

These concepts are highlighted in studies conducted on HL classes, which
confirm that one of the reasons HLSs take these courses is their desire and moti-
vation to develop skills and proficiency in Spanish. HLLs are reported to consider
the HL as part of their ethnic identity (Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005; Sánchez-Muñoz,
2013). In addition, students reflect that Spanish helps them stay connected with
their community (Leeman, Rabin, & Román-Mendoza, 2011). Sánchez-Muñoz
(2013) affirms that “la lengua se considera el cordón umbilical entre la cultura y las
tradiciones ancestrales y la identidad personal y social de los hablantes” (language
is considered the umbilical cord between the culture and traditions and the per-
sonal and social identity of the speaker) (p. 230). Therefore, it is fundamental to
recognize the importance language has on the development of a person’s identity
because this understanding can lead to language equality in educational institu-
tions and the deconstruction of hegemonic language ideologies.

Acknowledging such interconnections between Spanish and the Latinx com-
munity can also contribute to deconstructing the stigmatization of Spanish and
its speakers. This stigma is built from the language ideologies constructed by the
U.S. monolingual society that asserts that promoting bilingualism in the education
system is a threat to the nation (Potowski, 2013). The reinforcement of a mono-
lingual society and the rejection of bilingualism have been echoed by a number
of U.S. Presidents. Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 declared that “We have room for
but one flag, the American flag  . . . We have room for but one language here, and
that is the English language  . . .” Reagan stated in one of his speeches that bilin-
gual education is “un-American” (as cited in Sánchez, 1983). Ironically, Spanish is
reserved as a resource exclusively for those in power positions, while it is consid-
ered unpatriotic to use Spanish as a “symbol of a positive Latino ethnic identity”
(García, 1993, p. 72). Speaking Spanish in the U.S is seen as a problem that needs

Chiricú Journal, Vol. 3.262

immediate remediation (García, 1993). These antibilingual beliefs have led to the
social construction of a hierarchy among languages, one in which English has the
most prestige and value, while the rest share a pyramid-like categorization. This
then affects many HL speakers’ motivation and appreciation of their HL. Also, the
language ideologies attached to Spanish and its negative characterization have led
to the marginalization of this language, negating its historic role in the country
(Díaz-Campos, 2014, p. 251).

The intergenerational maintenance of Spanish is a huge challenge, given the
constant attacks on the language. Linguistic ideologies attached to Spanish can lead
to its progressive loss and depreciation. The devaluation of the speakers’ mother
tongue is also a devaluation of their culture, given that language is part of a person’s
identity (Sánchez-Muñoz, 2013; Potowski, 2012; Zentella, 2002). Consequently,
when Spanish speakers are discouraged from speaking their first language or their
family’s language, they are prone to lose a connection to their ethnic culture.
Spanish loss leads to linguistic insecurity that is linked to the fear of losing con-
nection to their community (Sánchez-Muñoz, 2013, p. 230). Furthermore, the
devaluation of Spanish, Darder (2012) argues, calls for a break from “a traditional
American pedagogy” as it only silences the voices of “bicultural students” who are
relegated to positions of powerlessness in the U.S. society where their Spanish is
stripped away (p. 21). In sum, attacks on Spanish in the U.S. are related to HL loss,
which, in turn, has negative consequences for the individual as well as for the larger
Latinx community (Alba et al., 2002; Cho & Krashen, 1998; Portes & Hao, 1998;
Valdés, 1995; Villa, 1996).

anti-immigration and antibilingualism
in arizona and california
Since 1960, the nation’s Latinx population has increased nearly ninefold, from 6.3
million then to 56.5 million in 2015, and it is projected to grow to 107 million
by 2065 (Pew Research Center). The Latinx population is collectively the largest
minority group in the United States. Even though this group is heterogeneous and
varies in terms of country of origin, race, and religion, among other cultural differ-
ences, speakers share Spanish as the official or majority language in their countries
of origin. In fact, the United States has become the second largest Spanish-speaking
country, beating out countries like Spain and Colombia (Melendez, 2015).
However, strength in numbers does not correspond to strength in power, repre-
sentation, or even respect from those in positions of authority.

Sánchez-Muñoz & Amezcua / Spanish as a Tool of Latinx Resistance 63

In the current political climate, extreme ideologies promote a toxic view of
nationalism (Holguín Mendoza, Oliver Raján, & Vergara Wilson, 2017). This
“nativist nationalism” is surging in multiple forms, including verbal attacks on
non-English speakers. There were overt attacks toward Spanish and Spanish
use during Trump’s presidential campaign. News reports and social media have
recently shown videos of Spanish speakers being yelled at to “speak American”
because they are in “America.” These attacks have taken place in a variety of settings
including supermarkets, parking lots, fast food restaurants, and even schools.

In one of the most recent verbal attacks, an employee at a UPS location in
Florida publicly humiliated a client for speaking Spanish. The client, a young
Latina, had walked into the store speaking Spanish to her mother; this seemed to
make the UPS employee assume that the client did not speak English. His public
reaction exemplified two common erroneous assumptions: that someone whose
first language is Spanish cannot possibly be fluent in English and that English is or
should be the sole language of the U.S. Since the 2016 elections, anti-immigrant
sentiment, Anglocentric rhetoric, and antibilingualism have continued to increase.
Verbal attacks on Spanish speakers have been exposed through viral videos on
social media, but there might be many more that go unpublicized.

Even though Spanish was one of the first European languages to arrive in
what is now known as the Southwest, it is stereotypically targeted as the language
of uneducated Latinx immigrants (Holguín Mendoza, Oliver Raján, & Vergara
Wilson, 2017). In fact, U.S. Latinxs have long faced hateful attacks enacted via
propositions, laws, abuse, dehumanization, and so on. For example, in a con-
troversial referendum, California voters passed Proposition 187 in November
1994. This was a ballot initiative to prevent undocumented persons from using
nonemergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of
California. Although Proposition 187 was found unconstitutional, it demon-
strated a climate of increasing fear and discrimination toward immigrants, spe-
cifically, the Latinx undocumented community in California. Santa Ana (1999)
conducted a data-driven analysis of the rhetoric used toward this community
in printed media texts that covered the 1994 political debate and campaign of
Proposition 187. He focused on the language that framed public opinion in the
local newspaper Los Angeles Times and found that there were many metaphors
referring to undocumented immigrants as animals, enemies, and threats to the
nation (p. 216).

Thus, we can see that the hateful rhetoric directed against Latinxs is not
new. As Prop 187 evidences, the 1980s and ’90s also pandered to anti-immigrant
and antibilingual sentiments as a political strategy to dehumanize and belit-
tle the undocumented community and to reinforce racist discourse. These
examples of attacks toward Latinx communities in the U.S. are a result of what
Zentella calls “Hispanophobia” (1997). Hispanophobia is a projection of the
racist and anti-immigrant attitudes of the dominant culture in the United States.

Chiricú Journal, Vol. 3.264

These sentiments are the foundation of laws and propositions that seek to “pro-
tect” the nation from diversity and make English the country’s official language.
According to Zentella, Spanish has become the main target of constant attacks,
evident in the spread of the “English-Only” movement, and in propositions such
as 227 in California and 203 in Arizona that have hindered bilingual education.
David & Moore (2014) claim that the racialization and denigration of Spanish is
a tool for the maintenance of economic, political, social, and cultural power of the
dominant groups.

Linguistic profiling and discrimination, which Zentella calls “hispanopho-
bic practices,” and the racialization of Spanish have continued and are especially
present in the current administration with proposals such as a wall along the U.S.-
Mexico border; massive deportations; and, as noted earlier, numerous public ver-
bal attacks against Spanish and U.S. Spanish speakers. Potowski (2010) argues that
even though the U.S. has had a history of linguistic diversity since the creation
of the nation, four myths have politically impacted the country’s multilingualism
richness: (1) English is the official language of the United States; (2) Linguistic
diversity is relatively new and has increased because of recent waves of immigrants;
(3) New immigrants refuse to learn English; and (4) Linguistic diversity is a threat
to the unity of the nation. These myths are the foundation of anti-immigrant laws
and antibilingual propositions that are currently finding renewed support thanks
to the sanctioned climate of nationalism and nativism with Anglos as the righteous
inheritors of the land and English as the official language of the country. In fact,
these myths spark the intolerance against linguistic diversity of the United States
that impacts the ethnolinguistic vitality of many States and frames bilingualism/
multilingualism as a problem (Cashman, 2009).

california: Proposition 227
In California about 40 percent of individuals speak a language other than
English at home and 20 percent are limited English speakers (G. Flores, 2006).
Although California is the most diverse state of the union and home to a great
portion of Spanish speakers, its policies have not always reflected a climate of
plurality and linguistic diversity. On the contrary, California has pioneered and
maintained restrictive language policies that have adversely affected the path to
academic success for Latinx children. In 1998, Proposition 227 (or the English-
for-the-Children initiative) passed in California, with the goal of limiting or ending

Sánchez-Muñoz & Amezcua / Spanish as a Tool of Latinx Resistance 65

bilingual education. The initiative was proposed by Ron Unz, a software developer
without any linguistics or teaching background, who had unsuccessfully run as the
Republican candidate in 1994 for the governorship of California.

It is important to contextualize the sociopolitical climate that allowed for the
passage of Proposition 227. As mentioned earlier, there were rising fears about
immigration (e.g., anti-immigrant initiatives such as Proposition 187) and a
widespread belief that language minority students were not learning English or
not learning it quickly enough, even though there was no empirical data to sup-
port this belief. Additionally, nonbilingual teachers feared a loss of control over
language minority student education. Some of the effects of Proposition 227 on
schools included the elimination of languages other than English to instruct any
student in California public schools, except under limited circumstances. Further,
it meant the dismantling of successful bilingual programs that had reported pos-
itive results in not only teaching English but also keeping children from falling
behind in other subjects while they acquired valuable bilingual skills. Also, Prop
227 imposed an unproven pedagogical approach without regard for the exper-
tise of educators or the wishes of local school boards. Finally, many studies
have proved that literacy in the first language is an advantage in the acquisition
of English literacy (Cummins, 1981; Genesee et al., 2009; Krashen & McField,
2005; Callahan & Gándara, 2014).

After Proposition 227 passed in California, Massachusetts and Arizona passed
similar versions of this initiative (Gándara & Orfield, 2012). However, restrictive
language policies did not start with Proposition 227. As Darder and Uriarte point
out (2013), the use of restrictive language policies has been central to the his-
tory of colonization in order to guarantee that certain groups of individuals will
not fully participate in the economic and political landscape of their countries
of residence. Proposition 227 was in effect in California for 18 years, from 1998
until 2016. On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 58:
the California Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Act (Senate
Bill 117). Proposition 58 repeals the English-only immersion requirement and
waiver provisions required by  Proposition 227. Although this is good news for
language minority students and for bilingual education in general, we will have
to wait to see in which ways this change in policy translates into better school
practices.

Chiricú Journal, Vol. 3.266

arizona: Proposition 203
Cashman (2009) measured the ethnolinguistic vitality of Spanish in Arizona. Her
analysis revealed that Spanish maintenance and bilingualism were considered a threat
for those in power and part of the dominant culture. And given the societal pressures,
dominant language ideologies, and the sociopolitical contexts of the state against
multilingualism and multiculturalism, she also found a low ethnolinguistic vitality of
Spanish. In particular, Cashman found that Arizona’s panic around immigration was
evident in legislation and law enforcement actions that created a hostile environment
and hindered Spanish maintenance. Case in point: Proposition 103, which declared
English as the official language in Arizona, impacted bilingual education in most
public education institutions in the state. Although Spanish is the most frequently
spoken language in Arizona, the constant attacks on the Latinx community have led
to a weak ethnolinguistic vitality that affects Spanish language maintenance.

In another study, Fitzsimmons-Doolan (2014) revealed that the educational
decisions of stakeholders, who are responsible for the policy-making process and
implementation of educational language policy in Arizona, are influenced by lan-
guage ideologies such as pro-monolingualism that views multiple languages as a
problem and English as a tool for social control. The findings of this study should
be a caveat to understand that policy-making processes are not grounded in the
interest of the communities they are supposed to benefit; on the contrary, pol-
icy is a tool to further political agendas. In this case, Republicans’ language ide-
ologies contribute to the assimilation narratives of their political party. Arizona’s
Proposition 203 has had a negative effect on Latinx children’s education and on
Spanish language maintenance (Dardis, 2017), just as Proposition 227 has in
California. Wright (2005) argues that the creation, interpretation, and implemen-
tation of 203 was a strategic political spectacle rather than a democratic rational
policy that centered on the interests and needs of students. The author analyzed
the rhetoric regarding Proposition 203 in articles, editorials, letters to the editor,
and official policy documents. Wright also observed debates, speeches, rallies,
seminars, State Board of Education meetings, and public hearings. He found that
Unz, the original author and financial backer of Proposition 203 and Proposition
227, strategically used stories, plot lines, and symbolic political language to present
issues in a compelling way challenging to argue with. For instance, Unz claimed
that bilingual education was denying immigrant children their right to learn
English and therefore be successful. The passage of Proposition 203, as a result of
the political spectacle, hindered bilingual education in Arizona and severely lim-
ited schools from having adequate and effective instructional programs for English
language learners, who at the time made up 16 percent of the student population.

In similar research, Johnson (2005) conducted a metaphor analysis of the
rhetoric strategies used by supporters of Proposition 203. The researcher found
that supporters presented bilingual education as a failure and a broken system. In

Sánchez-Muñoz & Amezcua / Spanish as a Tool of Latinx Resistance 67

addition, the debate between bilingual education and Proposition 203 was pre-
sented as a war. In fact, bilingual education was articulated as a deficient program,
while English was stated to be the key to reach the “American Dream.” Johnson
argues that the rhetoric formulated by the supporters of Proposition 203 distorted
and degraded linguistic diversity. Furthermore, to this day, Arizona continues to
be the most restrictive state in terms of language education programs. Gándara
and Orfield (2012) and Dardis (2017) claim that the restrictive language policies
in Arizona are a result of the linguistic hegemony of the state and the nation that
targets and positions bilingual education and Spanish as a problem.

methodology
This study analyzes data collected in Arizona and California to shed light on how
Spanish-speaking communities are negotiating language use in public spaces, espe-
cially as there is increased linguistic profiling and discrimination targeting Latinxs
since the last elections.

The sample population is made up of second-generation Latinxs residing in
two predominantly Spanish-speaking areas of Southern California and Arizona:
Los Angeles and Phoenix. The participants are 45 heritage language speakers
(HLSs), ages 19–22, enrolled in Spanish heritage language (HL) classes at a four-
year public university.

The Spanish courses for HLSs in which data was collected are two similar
courses in two different institutions: one (CHS 101) taught at a large public uni-
versity in Southern California and the other (SPAN 203) taught at a large pub-
lic university in Arizona. The typical students in these courses have no difficulty
expressing themselves in Spanish to talk about everyday issues or with their family.
They are exposed to Spanish on a daily basis through their community, friends,
family, and media. Following the work of educators and researchers in the field of
Spanish as a heritage language (e.g., Leeman, 2005), these courses seek to imple-
ment a critical approach in which the variety of Spanish that the student brings
to class is recognized and valued. Students’ skills are integrated into the curricu-
lum through activities that make use of their own speech communities and social
networks and challenge them to explore new registers and situations that have
been previously discussed in class. Much of the time in the classroom is engaged
in activities specifically designed to recognize different varieties and registers. The
main objective during the first few weeks is to build and nurture confidence, trying
to repair the damage to linguistic identity and security that speakers may have suf-
fered throughout their educational or social experience.

Chiricú Journal, Vol. 3.268

All participants in our study were born and raised in the U.S. At the time of
data collection, they were attending college and taking HL courses. These stu-
dents went to schools in which the language of education was English; none had
attended bilingual schools. This is fairly typical of many heritage speakers who
grow up listening to and speaking Spanish in the home, but do not formally learn
it at school. Gradually, they become dominant in English; after high school, many
decide they want to learn Spanish formally for employment opportunities after
college, to “reconnect with their identity,” as one participant in this study asserted,
and to be better prepared to pass the language on to their children.

The data collection procedure included written reflections (45 essays) that
were collected as part of a Spanish as an HL course assignment. Students were
asked to reflect on their use of Spanish, the presence of fear or conscious suppres-
sion of the language, and any change in attitude toward the HL due to stress, fear,
or linguistic discrimination since the last elections. Additionally, we created an
anonymous survey to ask participants about the effect of having taken a Spanish
HL course on their linguistic attitudes and confidence level. This survey was cre-
ated via SurveyMonkey and sent to students after their completing the course.

In order to explore the relationship between fear and Spanish language use in
public, this study was conducted through qualitative analysis of speakers’ narra-
tives. Specifically, we employed Thematic Analysis (TA). Although this method
was developed within the field of psychology, it has been widely used across the
social, behavioral, and applied sciences. The purpose of TA is to identify patterns
of meaning across a dataset that provide an answer to the research question being
addressed. Patterns are identified through a rigorous process of data familiariza-
tion, data coding, and theme development and revision. One of the advantages
is its flexibility. TA can suit questions related to people’s experiences, views, or
perceptions.

Results and analysis
The written essays addressed students’ level of comfort using Spanish in public and
any changes in attitude toward the language since the last presidential election. The
survey included open-ended questions, such as whether the HLL’s linguistic con-
fidence increased after completing the course, and whether the course influenced
their daily use of Spanish at home and in public spaces.

Analysis of the reflective essays revealed that HLLs are reporting an increase
in public use of Spanish since the last presidential elections. Three findings in par-
ticular highlight the importance of language as a tool against discrimination: (1)

Sánchez-Muñoz & Amezcua / Spanish as a Tool of Latinx Resistance 69

no fear of using Spanish in public and an attitude of resistance; (2) clear recogni-
tion of the link between linguistic discrimination and racism; (3) change toward
more awareness.

no fear and Resistance
Both Arizona and California participants reflected on how they feel using Spanish
in public and whether they feel afraid given the current sociopolitical climate.
Interestingly, the results show that second-generation speakers, in general, do not
feel intimated or afraid of using Spanish in public spaces. In fact, their essays reveal
an attitude of defiance and …