A white-owned Mexican restaurant called “Illegal Pete’s” will open in December at the doorstep of the University of Arizona. A growing debate surrounds the restaurant’s opening – a debate that could ultimately touch every university in the country.
In this case, the proposed restaurant is just one block from the main entrance to the university, and it is precisely where the campus pep rallies take place before the big games. Because of the restaurant’s location, its opening has ramifications that go beyond legal or real estate questions. Yet, at the moment, the university is remaining neutral on this matter. But is neutrality possible when the school’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the university community?
This controversy involves the question: Are universities responsible for the conduct of tenants in adjoining university villages – which are the heart of university life – whether they own the property or not? In this case, this question is particularly relevant as the owner of this restaurant appears to be locating his liquor establishments near college campuses.
In this case, the opponents of the restaurant are arguing that the university’s responsibility in creating a safe space for its students, staff, faculty and workers includes not simply freedom from physical harm, but also freedom from psychological harm that can occur from repeated exposure to anti-Mexican mockery and bigotry. The opponents, led by the student group MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicana/Chicano de Aztlan), have begun a petition, demanding that the owner either change the name of the restaurant or shut it down.
In this case, it is highly likely that Illegal Pete’s owner, Pete Turner, is actually counting on community outrage to generate free nationwide publicity for his Colorado-based chain of restaurants. That may not be a good gamble.
The decision to open this restaurant at the doorstep of the University of Arizona seems to be the epitome of either sheer callousness or complete obliviousness. In Arizona, the 2010 anti-immigrant SB 1070 legislation requires that police officers inquire about the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country without proper documents. This legalization of racial profiling has led not simply to inconveniences, but also to the tearing apart of families by police officers acting in tandem with immigration officers.
The community in which the restaurant will soon open is also a place where residents live with Operation Streamline, a dehumanizing court procedure that takes just 60 to 90 minutes and convicts 70 migrants a day, shipping them off to for-profit private detention centers.
Turner is also seemingly unaware that Arizona is the home of HB 2281, the anti-ethnic studies measure that created much conflict in Tucson, as it led to the dismantling of Tucson’s highly successful Mexican American studies program.
This operation and these measures have become part of Arizona’s desert landscape for the last several years. Is Turner unaware of the resultant racially charged political strife?
Turner might want to read the articles and the letters to the editor regarding these issues in the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star during the period of 2010 to 2012. The vicious and virulent hate that was unleashed during that time was unprecedented. A great number of the many thousands of hate letters that were published invoked the term “illegals.”
Turner feigns ignorance of the fact that the term “illegal,” when used in reference to an individual, a people or culture, is demeaning – particularly when it is applied to people who are being violently displaced from their homes and families due to their immigration status. And whether the university agrees with its usage or not, can there be any doubt that this restaurant will once again trigger acrimonious hate?
Here is one easy test regarding whether a business name is appropriate: Is the word “illegal” attached to anything Mexican?
Is the term offensive? Highly. Has it been used to denigrate the Mexican and Central American communities in the past? Always. Is there a history of people at liquor-serving establishments mocking Mexicans in the United States, especially in college towns? It is virtually a ritual. Will liquor be served at this establishment? Yes. End of discussion.
If anyone has a doubt regarding the inappropriateness of this term, please go to the Drop The I word campaign website. But unless one has been hiding under a saguaro cactus, it should be obvious that the word is offensive.
The 2016 presidential campaign, in particular, has highlighted this inflammatory issue. One candidate in particular has been whipping up anti-Mexican hate and anti-immigrant frenzies by claiming that “illegals” are the source of most of the nation’s problems. This candidate has been calling for the instant deportation of 11 to 30 million migrants, the construction of a 2,000-mile wall and the overturning of the 14th Amendment, which would ban birthright citizenship. This has already caused violence against Mexicans and Latinos at Donald Trump rallies.
This also comes at a time of heightened awareness regarding the idea that “my culture is not your costume.” On college campuses and at nearby drinking establishments, the mocking of Mexican Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Arabs and African Americans is hardly news.
Illegal Pete’s threatens to become a permanent home for that continual mockery and exploitation of these non-white cultures.
That being the case, can the university morally afford to remain “neutral?”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 9 days to add 500 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.