Articles

Rarely has an article published in a scholarly journal ignited such a firestorm of protest from the Hispanic community as has “The Hispanic Challenge,” written by Samuel P. Huntington, Ph.D., chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, Cambridge, Mass. The article was selected for publication in Foreign Policy, Washington, D.C., from his forthcoming book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, which was the subject of a recent Latino Kaleidoscope column (HO, Conde, Huntington & the Mexican Peril; Aug. 23, 2004.

The managing editor of Foreign Policy, Carlos Lozada, when spoken to on March 25, reported that since the March/April issue was posted on the Web site on Feb. 24 and hit the news stands on March 2, the article had resulted in “an explosion of press coverage,” from the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Miami Herald to countless regional and local papers and to publications throughout Latin America, England, South Korea, Australia, India, and more. Lozada says there was “an incredible amount of responses, hundreds of letters, resulting in one of the longest letters to the editor section we’ve ever run. It’s very evident we struck a nerve.” Lozada also says, “We published the article for two main reasons. The topic of immigration and assimilation is a huge problem here and in Europe. And the author is one of the most influential political scientists in the country.”

To turn first to the article, it is, in fact, about immigration and assimilation, but is perhaps as notable for what it does not say as for what it does. Much of it is devoted to data showing that there have been significant increases of Hispanic immigration both legal and illegal, and that this population is rapidly growing within this country. This is hardly controversial.

But what one would here expect, in terms of what is usually considered an immigration problem, is that the new waves of arriving people somehow create a burden upon the native population. For instance, in a simplistic example, if there are 20 families living on a small island, with 20 houses, enough gardening plots, enough water, and so forth for just those 20 families, and another 20 families arrive, then you have a problem, for the new arrivals will significantly deplete the resources of those already there.

In other words, if the United States were not big enough to absorb this great influx of Hispanics without causing all kinds of social, financial and other stress for those already here, that would be a real immigration problem. But this real problem, Huntington does not address, so he acknowledges it must not exist.

So what does he posit in its place? The title of the article, The Hispanic Challenge, gives a good indication of what is to come. The header to the article pretty much sums up Huntington’s position:

“The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures and two languages. Unlike pas immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves—from Los Angeles to Miami—and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge as its peril.”

At peril, Huntington maintains, is the American dream. But what he makes clear in the article, and what is pulled out in large letters for emphasis, is “There is no American dream. There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society.” In his recap of American history, the only forces that count are English Protestant.

He maintains that if the country had been settled in the 17th and 18th centuries not by British Protestant but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics, “It would not be the United States; it would be Quebec, Mexico or Brazil.” Thus, if you thought that countries such as France, Spain and Portugal, as well as the Catholic Church, were part of the forces of Western civilization which contributed to the ethos of the U.S., you stand corrected. Moreover, according to the logic of this argument, it’s not only Hispanics who have failed to contribute to this American dream, but also everybody who is not of the heritage of English Protestants.

For Huntington, it’s this Anglo-Protestant ethos which constitutes the “national identity” of the U.S. that is under attack by the forces of globalization today. But the real peril is coming from the Hispanics. What is uncontroversial is the fact that the Hispanic population is growing so rapidly here. For instance, the U.S. Census estimated this population to be 36.5 million in 2000 but adjusted that to 38.8 million in 2002, with a new adjustment coming. About 25 percent of students are Hispanic, and about one-third of this population is between the ages of 18 and 25, which indicated many of this group will marry and have children. But here’s how Huntington phrases it: “In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenges to America’s traditional identity come from immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to Black and White American natives.”

Outside of their “fertility rates,” what other immediate and serious challenges do Hispanics bring to the U.S. identity?

Huntington reviews a history of the wars with annexations of parts of Mexico. “Mexicans do not forget these events. Quite understandably, they feel that they have special rights in these territories.” He then makes the point that Mexicans who come here “enjoy a sense of being on their own turf” and details all the parts of the country where they have established “beachheads.”

Huntington writes that “Demographically, socially and culturally, the reconquista (reconquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway.”

Huntington fills his pages with charges that Hispanics will not assimilate, and have contempt for U.S. values. He emphasizes the dire effect that would result from Hispanics imposing Spanish as a second language. He ascribes to Hispanics “blood and belief” identities, talks of “irreconcilable differences,” and says “blood is thicker than borders.” Huntington says Miami is the “prototype” of the Hispanic takeover, and predicts a White backlash.

He quotes another as saying the stage is being set for making the U.S. “increasingly at risk of large-scale racial conflict unprecedented in our nation’s history.” Pulled out of the article as a headline is the statement, “The cultural division between Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between Blacks and Whites as the most serious cleavage in U.S. society.”

Of course, the Anglos enslaved Blacks, but now, according to Huntington, it’s the Hispanics who put the Anglos at risk. And here, all along, you thought that what you really had to worry about was al-Qaida. But, according to Huntington, the terror is from within, from the creators of salsa.

“Huntington’s article is an ideological screed written under the guise of scholarship,” says Rodolfo de la Garza, professor of political science, Columbia University, New York City. “He shows no signs of having reviewed the relevant literature. His main point is that in an era of multiculturalism, Hispanics are not assimilated, but all of the relevant literature refutes that. He claims that Latinos don’t learn English, but this is completely unsupported by the data. His claim that Latinos don’t intermarry is not supported by careful analysis. And his claim that Hispanics don’t support American values is simply resoundingly rejected.”

There are some areas where Latinos are changing America, says de la Garza. He explains that while the first generation is Spanish-speaking, the second is bilingual, and the third speaks primarily English. The family unit may be bilingual, however, and, as immigration continues, this could, over time, create a bilingual people. “That’s the worst-case scenario, a bilingual population. But is that a bad thing? If so, he never tells us why,” says de la Garza. Indeed, Huntington complains that some politicians may someday have to learn Spanish. But he does not predict that Hispanics will be elected president, as well as virtually any other political office, if they speak only Spanish and not English.

“Huntington is trying to frighten people,” de la Garza says. “There’s no evidence that most Hispanics are not, for the most part, learning English. And, if some of the older, most recent immigrants don’t learn English, the evidence of any resulting problems is zero. There’s a lot of data supporting this.” De la Garza adds that, in terms of the “enclaves,” there is the North End in Boston where the people speak Italian, Greek Town in Detroit and several nationalistic enclaves in Florida and New York City, but no one has sounded an alarm about those being a threat to national security.

“This is an unfortunate article, a piece of bigotry disguised as academic research,” says Lisa Navarrete, vice president, National Council of La Raza, Washington, D.C. “It’s a refrain we’ve heard throughout history. Ben Frankly said the Germans would never assimilate. The same was said about the Irish, the East European Jews at the start of the 20th century. They’ve all been proved wrong again and again by American history.”

Navarrete adds, “We are an umbrella for over 300 organizations that are helping Hispanics become citizens, to register to vote, to speak English, to become part of American life. Nothing can be farther from the truth than any indication that we are not willing or able to assimilate into American life.”

Moreover, continues Navarrete, Huntington, by fanning fears over a nonexistent problem, is covering up and distracting attention from very real ones. “When the threats we face are so obvious, so numerous and so challenging, the foremost being education, which our kids aren’t getting, Huntington says Latinos are responsible. Blame the victims. Here you have families working two to three jobs a day, trying to improve their lives and those of their children, and Huntington says we don’t have the Protestant work ethic, are irresponsible, and don’t want to be a part of American life, just lay back and speak Spanish. I find it sinister, truly disturbing, and it makes me very angry.”

In agreement is de la Garza. “This is not an assimilation but an opportunity/cost issue. The question is, do we now have a society that makes certain that all citizens have the mobility and access to education? The answer is clearly no. For economic reasons, you have both parents working all of the time, and you have students dropping out of high school and college. But you shouldn’t blame the kids for dropping out. That’s blaming the victim. What really concerns me is Huntington’s total failure to base his position on any intellectual criteria. It’s pure ideology. Huntington is Pat Buchanan in the academy.”

Why was such an article allowed to be published?

Lozada says, “We were aware people would have strong reactions, but we believe in free and open debate, and are pleased that the debate has begun. But this article by no means signifies our own personal position or those of the editors of the magazine.”

Lozada’s personal position? He says that as an immigrant from Peru, his personal experience does not agree with Huntington’s assessment, but that as an editor who deals with many issues such as free trade, and running both sides, he’s not prepared to speak on the larger issues.

De la Garza doesn’t accept this. “If a Latino had written a counter article, or written as sloppily as this one, it would not have been published,” he says. “Just because Huntington is a scholar he’s given credence, even though his analysis is wrong. What you have in this article is White man’s affirmative action.”

“Huntington has a track record of sounding the alarm and projecting fear into the future,” says Navarrete. “He was one of the first to start playing on the differences between Islam and the U.S. There’s a streak of bigotry which runs through all his writing. How he’s moved from the Arab to the Latino community. The work of this anti-foreigner is enormously shoddy. He has no evidence to back him up. And some of the evidence he does cite contradicts him.”

“Back in 1994, Huntington published a book posting why Muslims and Christians could never world together,” says Gabriela Lemus, director of policy and legislation, League of United Latin American Citizens, Washington, D.C. “He believes globalization won’t work and very purposefully tries to pit people against one another. It’s very divisive approach, when we should be reaching out and trying to work with one another.”

“Because Hispanics have such a large and growing population in the U.S., this in itself can cause some people to be afraid, and Huntington fans these fears,” Lemus says. And Huntington’s views are very much a cause for concern, says Lemus, for “He is required reading in just about every political science course in the country.” She also relates that though the editors section to rebut Huntington, they have, to date, refused to allow a Hispanic comparable full-length article.


(E.N.-HO sought Huntington’s response to this article. What follows is author Dolan’s account describing his unsuccessful attempt to present that response).

I phoned Huntington’s office to ask him for a comment, and spoke to his secretary. When I mentioned his article, before I could identify it, she said, “Yes, yes, I know.” She knew which one I was referring to. She said, “Dr. Huntington does not want to give interviews because his book is coming out. He doesn’t like things being taken out of context.” I said that the response came not to the book, but to the article, which he himself had placed for publication.

She said, “Send him an e-mail.” I asked her to convey my message since I didn’t do e-mail. “Dr. Huntington doesn’t do e-mail either,” she said. “I do it for him.” “Well then,” I said, “Look, I’m only a reporter. I’m calling as a courtesy to give him a chance to respond should he so desire. If he doesn’t want to respond, nobody will try to force him to.” I’ll give him your message,” she said. “Thank you,” I said. Huntington never phoned me.

Reprinted with permission from The Hispanic Outlook In Higher Education Magazine®, Vol. 14 #24, September 6, 2004. For more information, visit http://www.HispanicOutlook.com