What’s in a name? Enough to leave some right-wingers fuming over the Washington-based National Council of La Raza (NCLR), one of the largest – and arguably, most influential – Hispanic civil rights organizations in the country.
It’s the “la raza” that drives critics nuts. The literal translation is “the race” even though, among Hispanics, the phrase is commonly interpreted as “the community” – as in the Hispanic community.
Granted, the organization’s name may be outdated. But then so is the moniker of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The misunderstanding about NCLR’s name is just another challenge for Janet Murguia, the president and CEO of the group. Since taking the helm in 2005, the Kansas native has tried to clear up misconceptions about the group and its purpose.
“I think you have to address perceptions,” she said. “Especially if they’re false perceptions.” That’s hard to do when some Americans worry that the country is becoming too Hispanic and that Hispanics will use their new prominence to settle old scores. For this bunch, NCLR is a convenient foil.
Confession time. I’ve never been much of a fan of NCLR. I’ve always considered the group too corporate, too cautious and too consistently out of step with the views of average Hispanics on issues such as school vouchers and bilingual education. Besides, there are times when the organization seems a subsidiary of the Democratic Party, an alliance that has only served to marginalize it.
Murguia is a veteran of the Clinton administration, having served as chief liaison to the House of Representatives and deputy director of legislative affairs.
Even so, Murguia doesn’t buy my argument that NCLR is too cozy with Democrats. She points to the success the group and its allies had in convincing senators of both parties to support the McCain-Kennedy bill for comprehensive immigration reform.
Still, the perception endures – especially in Washington – that NCLR is tried-and-true Democratic blue. And Murguia came close to admitting as much.
“We have tried to follow the merits of issues,” she said. “Sort of call them as we see them. And, more times than not, that has left us on the left side of the spectrum.” Say, you don’t suppose partisan politics could be what’s really behind the criticisms lodged by Rep. Charlie Norwood, a Republican from Georgia whose knowledge of Hispanics, judging from his public comments, doesn’t extend much beyond Cinco de Mayo and whatever is on the No. 3 combination plate.
Norwood has fired off op-eds and press releases attacking NCLR as a radical anti-American group. He’s especially incensed that NCLR supports “racist … secondary organizations” such as the student group MEChA (Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan).
The congressman cites a $2,500 grant NCLR gave to the MEChA chapter at Georgetown University in 2003 – money that was probably used for some mundane cultural celebration. Never mind that the donation is minuscule compared to the millions of dollars that NCLR gives to health clinics, community centers and other charities every year.
Norwood also insists that MEChA was behind those immigrant demonstrations last spring. Wrong again. According to the Los Angeles Times, the credit for the marches goes to Spanish-language radio disc jockeys and grass-roots immigrant groups – not MEChA or NCLR.
Lastly, Norwood has bought the fairy tale that MEChA is leading a re-conquest of the Southwest, and, he insists, this is the real agenda of the nation’s 40 million Hispanics.
Ay caramba! Let’s not confuse the fringe with the mainstream. If this were the 1960s, I suppose Norwood would be insisting that the radical group Students for a Democratic Society was a fair reflection of American liberals, or that the Black Panthers were representative of all African-Americans.
Murguia and NCLR have tackled Norwood’s accusations in press releases and offered to meet with the congressman to clear up any lingering confusion about the group. So far, she said, he has refused.
Still, Murguia has not given up hope. She’s out to change minds, even the closed ones. Part of the reason may be her background in politics and her zeal for pragmatism.
“You always remember that it takes two sides to come to an agreement,” she said, “and you have to build consensus and reach out to both sides of the aisle and challenge both sides. And if you want to get anything done, you have to build that common ground.” Good luck with that.
