Introduction

In the study of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, criminology has historically focused on a Black-White dyad of crime and frequently Latinas/os have been ignored. Recently this has begun to change, but there is still a dearth of research, especially concerning the inverse relationship between Latina/o education and imprisonment. This relationship suggests while Chicanas/osFootnote 1 continue to lag in educational attainment (K-12 and college) with dismal graduation and dropout rates (Saenz and Ponjuan 2009), their incarceration rate continues to increase (González and Portillos 2007). The education-incarceration relationship might also be apparent through the criminalization process evident in schools, especially in predominately racial/ethnic minority schools (Giroux 2003; Lipman 2003; Theriot 2009; Watts and Erevelles 2004).

In many urban schools, security measures include security guards, a resource officer, required identification, security gates, and cameras. Some research suggest these policies were implemented partly as a means of social control after the 1999 Columbine High shooting, which according to Altheide (2009) heightened fear of crime in schools. As a result, nationally from 1999 to 2008, we have seen: (a) controlled access to schools increase from 75 to 90%, (b) required identification increase from 4 to 8%, and (c) increase in security cameras from 19 to 55% (Dinkes et al. 2009). Furthermore, the use of school resource officers has increased dramatically since 2000 (Brown 2006). In conjunction with the criminalization of schools, policymakers have initiated policies over the last 30 years that have shaped the American consciousness into one where Chicana/o youth (especially Latina/o immigrants) and other underrepresented youth of color are viewed as criminals (Rios 2006).

These perceptions perpetuate an image of Chicanas/os as educationally deficit and future criminals (González and Portillos 2007). This is partly achieved through criminalizing entire communities rather than individuals, such as tougher penalties for gang members (Rios 2006). To help understand how the inverse education and prison relationship (i.e., criminalization) impacts Chicana/o students in their everyday lives, we explore how school and community surveillance affects perceptions of school safety by students and school personnel. To determine how security measures are experienced by various groups of Latinas/os, we utilize interview and observational data. Our study includes semi-structured interviews with students, school personnel, and former residents of La Victoria Footnote 2 who are now police officers. Additionally, participant observations were conducted in the high school and community.

In this paper, we argue there is no universal Chicana/o experience, but complex and multi-layered experiences in racialized spaces where some students are discriminated against based on their ethnic/racial, class, gender, language, and citizenship associations, and others perceive no such discrimination. School personnel, however, had similar experiences and appreciated the multiple surveillance techniques given the perceived dangerousness of the community. We first discuss the relevant literature concerning the criminalization of Latinas/os, LatCrit theory, and the concept of racialized space. Next, we discuss how the research was conducted (i.e., methods) and present our findings. Finally, we make suggestions for researchers who study race and Latinas/os in the United States, and offer policy recommendations.

Criminalization in Schools, Latino Critical Theory, and Racialized Space

Our paper centers on the criminalization of Latinas/os and analyzes this process through the theoretical lens of LatCrit and the concept of racialized space. The term criminalization is described by Engel and Silver (2001) as typically some sort of unfair punishment. We extend this definition by describing criminalization not only as an unfair punishment in a specific setting (i.e., school), but also a broad process where multiple criminal justice policies and agencies are used to disproportionately process Latina/o youth through the criminal justice system. In one example, law enforcement criminalized both documented and undocumented Latina/o immigrants in Arizona and police stopped, questioned and gave formal and informal sanctions to individuals for nothing more than the color of their skin (Romero 2006). Another example of criminalization occurs in the juvenile justice system. Rios (2006, 2008) argues criminalization occurs when youth of color are processed through the juvenile justice system for non-violent offenses due to multiple criminal justice policies created to curb youth crime. Given the concerns of youth violence, the broad process of criminalization has extended to schools (Rios 2010).

The literature on the multiple surveillance techniques employed by schools has found some positive aspects. Security guards, metal detectors, or locker searches help students feel safe (Kupchik and Ellis 2008). Literature on Latinas/os has also found positive outcomes, especially regarding police contact, which some Latina/o youth view as favorable (Brown and Benedict 2005a). Also, when Latinas/os have fewer negative police contacts in their communities, and more positive interactions in school, they are likely to develop favorable perceptions of the criminal justice system (Hagan et al. 2005). Others, however, are concerned that the use of surveillance can criminalize students (Theriot 2009; Katz 1997). When youth engage in delinquency, even minor forms, their punishment will be determined by a police officer rather than a school official (Beger 2002; Theriot 2009). Thus, youth school misbehavior becomes criminalized (Anderson 2004; Theriot 2009).

Similar studies examine the various ways in which Latina/o youth are disproportionately criminalized by the policies intended to protect them. These studies find the criminalization process in the criminal justice system mirrors the criminalization occurring in schools for Latina/o youth (González and Portillos 2007; Katz 1997; Rios 2010). Students also report negative experiences with surveillance and security in predominately Latina/o schools (Brown and Benedict 2005a; Snell et al. 2002; Theriot 2009). The criminalization process also propels some youth into violence and gangs due largely to the negative experiences in the educational system (Katz 1997; Rios 2010). The negative experiences include encounters with zero tolerance policies (Welch and Payne 2010). For example, schools with large percentages of students of color are more likely to use punitive means to control student behavior, which include the use of zero tolerance policies (Welch and Payne 2010). Another cause of negative experiences is attributed to the social construction process resulting in school personnel, especially teachers, viewing Latina/o youth as criminals rather than students (Melita 1990; Valdés 1996). In our research, we explain the criminalization process using Latino Critical Theory.

Latino Critical Theory (LatCrit) is used to move beyond the Black–White paradigm of research typically found in the study of race (Espinoza and Harris 1997) and argues we need to research diverse Latina/o populations (Valdes 1997). LatCrit is concerned with how institutional discrimination affects Latinas/os (González and Portillos 2007). LatCrit connects issues of a pan-Latina/o community, by focusing on social problems such as contemporary and historical institutional racism, sexism, and classism, but also: (a) cultural and linguistic devaluation; (b) legal criminalization of undocumented immigrants; and (c) racial profiling based primarily on phenotype.

Solórzano and Delgado Bernal (2001) have outlined five tenets that make up the essence of LatCrit. For the purposes of our paper we focus on only three tenets.Footnote 3 The first argues Latinas/os experience discriminatory oppression, particularly based on race, class, gender, language, and immigration status. This mostly affects Latinas/os that are darker, poorer, female, speak with recognizable Spanish accents, and are not American citizens (Romero 2006). For Latina/o issues centering on crime and justice, this translates into being victimized by fellow students (Brown and Benedict 2005b), punished disproportionately in schools (Lipman 2003), and having confrontational interactions with the police (Zatz and Portillos 2000). It also means that Latinas/os who look “Mexican,” and/or live and shop in Latina/o communities, are in danger of being stopped and harassed by police without probable cause (Romero 2006).

The second LatCrit tenet addresses the oppressive dominant ideology that Latinas/os deal with daily in their schools and communities. This is a little harder to detect than the discrimination that they suffer because it is more subtle and hidden. It exists when Latinas/os are told not to speak Spanish in schools, made to feel inferior because of their culture and ethnicity, or experience verbal violence in schools (e.g., being called beaners and wetbacks). Domination through ideology is what Sampson (1993) called the “silent killer” because it requires sustained “teaching” by the majority towards the minority that their culture and language is in some way inferior. Trueba (1993) called this “castification” of minorities that requires exploitation through institutions of minority families, which ultimately leads to reducing them to the status of a lower cast, and ultimately taking away their dignity and humanity. This pervasive attack on Latina/o language and culture causes many Latina/o youth to misbehave in schools (Lopez et al. 2004).

The third addresses the centrality of experiential knowledge for Latinas/os to voice their plight. LatCrit researchers who focus on explicating Latina/o voices use terms like storytelling (Rodriguez 2010) and counter-storytelling (Solórzano and Yosso 2002). Rodriguez (2010) described storytelling as a way for the marginalized to voice their knowledge and lived experiences, and can serve as a powerful means of survival and liberation. This can be very powerful to Latinas/os that are marginalized in school and society (Katz 1997, 1999), sometimes by being labeled “at-risk” (Garcia-Reid 2008), and other times by suffering hate crimes and/or racial inequities (Jiwani 2005; Johnson et al. 2006). Counter-storytelling is the same as storytelling, but with the integration of the LatCrit into the story (Solórzano and Yosso 2002). Counter-stories were also the ways in which our research participants told us about their experiences, particularly in the ways that schools marginalize them, and how discrimination operates in their daily lives.

As a collective, these three tenets allows us to explore the complexities of how institutional discrimination and various forms of marginalities impact Latinas/os, while at the same time exploring group differences which are often neglected when Latinas/os are studied. One problem found in most research conducted by academics who study Latinas/os is they ignore important cultural and geographic differences and do not appear to recognize within group differences. That is, by using terms such as “Hispanic” or “Latina/o” researchers generalize their findings to a diverse population that has many cultural and geographical differences. To help show these within group differences between Chicanas/os and Mexicanas/os we build on LatCrit by developing the notion of racializing spaces (see Solis et al. 2009), which exist in most US communities. Racialized space is used to describe the historical and contemporary social/economic arrangements in which specific geographical areas are composed largely of a single ethnic/racial group, and class distinctions are simultaneously interwoven within the larger geographic space. This is evidenced by visible social and physical markers, such as the existence or lack of city resources; and evidence of neighborhood blight (i.e., unkept lawns and graffiti) or economic stability (i.e., large houses and quiet neighborhoods). In this same vein, images of criminality are associated with racialized spaces, such as suburbs being viewed as affluent and with little crime, and urban areas seen as dangerous and crime-ridden. It is concerns about racialized space, especially those occupied by people of color, that are socially constructed as dangerous by politicians, media, and law enforcement (Solis et al. 2009), and helps fuel the policies to criminalize Latinas/os. The racialization of space helps to explain the context in which school personnel and students experience school policies and practices.

Methods

Qualitative data were used to understand how Chicanas/os experience school surveillance in La Victoria. La Victoria is about two square miles with one high school. The high school has over 2,000 students: 94% are Latina/o and 75% graduate in 4 years. There were three phases of data collection. In the first, 30 interviews were conducted with community members and high school youth about the community’s social problems. The second consisted of observations of and semi-structured interviews with 11 police officers and administrators who patrolled La Victoria, and a school resource officer who worked in the high school. The third included interviews with a Chicano vice principal, a White teacher, and a Chicano school security guard. Also, to enhance the urban student perspective, 12 additional semi-structured interviews were conducted (some in Spanish) with high school junior and seniors: (a) eight from the high school in La Victoria (four men and four women), and (b) four from two neighboring Latina/o high schools.

Data produced from semi-structured interviews and observations were analyzed through a technique called thematic content analysis (Silverman 1993). Coding of data into major themes occurred as interviews or observations were completed. Analysis of data included categorizing and coding of interviews, observations, and theoretical memos (Glesne 1998) to elaborate and formulate ideas related to LatCrit and the concept of racialized space. QSR NVIVO8Footnote 4 was used to organize the data across major themes such as views of school safety, perceptions of cameras, and fear of crime.

Findings

LatCrit, Racialized Space, and the History of La Victoria

By developing the notion of racialized spaces our work heeds Valdes’ (1997) suggestion that LatCrit scholars should strive for a balanced and sophisticated analysis of group histories to help highlight how racial hierarchies are created by multiple factors. We begin this section by showing how a particular geographic space has changed and become racialized over time allowing for criminality to be generalized to the entire community rather than individuals. The notion of racialized space allows us to consider how race and crime are socially constructed in a specific neighborhood. We begin by showing how La Victoria has transformed into a criminalized and racialized space.

As former residents, police officers we interviewed recalled some historical changes in La Victoria, such as: (a) fewer well-maintained houses, (b) loss of a major grocery store (which has been replaced by one that caters to Mexicans), (c) a movie theater that disappeared, and (d) a demographic shift from Whites to Chicanas/os in the school and in the community. A demographic shift began in the mid 1960s when Latinas/os came to La Victoria and increased in the 1980s. As Mexican immigrants began to move into La Victoria, the transformation from a White middle-class community with relatively little crime to a racialized space socially constructed as “dangerous” was nearing completion. During the 1980s white flight was fueled by decreasing property values (Krysan 2002) and frequent media accounts that showed crime daily in the neighborhood, further creating a popular criminal lore about La Victoria. Long time residents remembered the 80s as the arrival of immigrants and the rise in crime. A Chicano officer who lived in the neighborhood explained that: “the neighborhood evolved when the Mexican immigrants started to come in …. The neighborhood began to change at that point … and we saw changes in radio calls.”

In the 1980s, working-class immigrant culture began to be perceived as a threat to middle and lower-class Whites. By the 1990s, Latinas/os composed over 90% of the population, and became the scapegoats for the crime that was occurring in the neighborhood. According to our interpretation of Solórzano and Delgado Bernal’s work (2001), the racialization of space fits with tenant one where discriminatory oppression practiced by Whites includes perceiving the needs and experiences of working-class Latinas/os as inferior and dangerous. One of the Chicano officers who once lived in the community made the following comment when discussing demographic changes and crime: “Got to the point where we did not want to bring our families over …. So, we helped mom gang up on dad, and it was inevitable dad was going to give in.” Eventually his parents moved out of the neighborhood.

The problems in the neighborhood (Gutiérrez 1995) and schools (Bejarano 2007) contributed to ethnic tensions that divided Chicanas/os and new immigrants; and this helped fuel the flight of many middle class families, which led to further racialization of La Victoria. For example, a Chicano police officer who once lived in La Victoria stated that: “There’s a clear division between Mexicans and Mexican Americans. I developed some prejudices myself because I would listen to my dad ‘Those Mexicans are coming over like crazy.”’ The prejudices were tied to the fear that new immigrants from Latin America would drastically change the culture of La Victoria. As explained by LatCrit tenant two, there is a dominant ideology that is used by those in power to make other groups feel inferior. As a result, some Chicanas/os recognize this process and desire to avoid being categorized as inferior and want to differentiate themselves from newer immigrants (Bejarano 2007).

Residents and law enforcement officials also attributed the changes in the community to growth of gangs whom they believed had become more violent. In addition, some of the gang conflicts were centered on tensions between Chicanas/os and Mexicanas/os. One former Chicano resident described La Victoria gangs as very different from those that had existed when he was a youth, saying that: “When the turf stuff came in, they started arming themselves a lot more, and they also had rivalries with … Mexicans. The Chicanos armed themselves because the Mexicans came armed.” This explains the changing nature of the gangs and the escalation of violence between Chicanas/os and Mexicanas/os in La Victoria.

One explanation for the changing dynamics in the community can be attributed to the social construction of a moral panic about gangs by the police department and some of the residents (Burns and Crawford 1999; Zatz 1987). Gangs have existed in La Victoria at least since the 1970s, and although crime levels may have been increasing, the rise can be partly attributed to the policing practices that have specifically targeted Latinas/os. The moral panic concerning gangs, as well as a dominant ideological narrative describe in Solórzano and Delgado Bernal’s (2001) second tenant help create the dangerousness of Latinas/os and further racializing and criminalizing the neighborhood. By the 1990s La Victoria’s transformation into a dangerous racialized space was complete. It was comprised mostly of Latina/o residents, and there were new physical markers clearly demarcated by specific streets and a freeway that helped identify and separate this area from affluent and middle-class communities. Also, Latinas/os and Whites cared for their homes differently, and Latina/o moral character became associated with unkept houses (i.e., using their yards as driveways and not maintaining them). Finally, social markers that identified this area as dangerous included visible “prostitutes,” drug sales, homelessness, violent crime, and more brown faces.

Given that racialized spaces are constantly in flux, a geographic area that that was once socially constructed as relatively free of crime can transform into an area that is viewed as rampant with criminal activity. In these communities, patterns of racial inequality can be found and sometimes these are marked by higher levels of violence (Peterson and Krivo 2009). Patterned inequalities fit with the LatCrit perspective that racial hierarchies exits, and are exemplified by white flight. Moreover, these spaces are partly the result of what the LatCrit perspective refers to as institutional racism and discrimination (Johnson and Martínez 2000) in the community and schools (González 2007). It is in this context where new security measures would be justified and implemented by concerned residents, criminal justice officials and school personnel.

School Official’s Perceptions of Teaching in a Racialized Space

Racialized and criminalized spaces are often avoided (Solis et al. 2009); similarly, La Victoria is avoided by urban residents because it has been socially constructed as dangerous. This criminalized space is where many White teachers work. In many ways, personnel in predominately ethnic schools are cultural border crossers who learn different sets of norms and values because of their contacts with diverse communities (Majors 2007). Similarly, teachers cross borders because of their jobs in La Victoria, and they are alarmed by the living conditions of their students. A White teacher stated the following:

When I take my students home and I drive through the neighborhood … it is kind of a shock to see the way that some of the houses are; the yards … the socio-economic level is much different than what I grew up with, and different from where I live right now …. I am a White girl, and I don’t live here, and I drive a different type of car; I might be seen as a target …

The Chicano vice principal also stated that: “As I went around the neighborhood, it’s really a disadvantaged neighborhood, and since then I have learned that improvement is long overdue … crime is high, statistically certain crimes like drugs, robbery, including violent crimes and domestic disputes …”

School officials interviewed for this research have made a conscious decision to live outside La Victoria. Not only are most concerned about crime in the area and desire to avoid it, but many fear the students they teach. Despite their many positive interactions with students, the criminalization and racialization of La Victoria influenced teachers’ decisions to not live there. A White teacher expressed concerns as justification for living in another area of the city: “I live in another area because I would not want to run into a lot of students I deal with. I would not want to get my home trashed, my vehicles trashed, or anything like that.”

The limited research on teachers’ perceptions of crime indicates school disorder generates fear of crime in school (Roberts et al. 2007). However, our data shows teachers do not spend large parts of their day worrying about their personal safety while in school. Instead, teachers have concerns for their personal property, especially their vehicles left in faculty parking lots. For example, a White teacher stated:

Once in a while you hear about shootings …. But, on a general day-to-day basis I don’t worry about crime … and I know that after school they are really good about stationing officers in the park. Right around the school area, several times I have left and they are already out there arresting. My only concern would be maybe having my car vandalized or stolen due to the fact that a teacher did have his car stolen.

As supported by previous research (Kupchik and Ellis 2008), our study shows that security was associated with positive feelings concerning the disciplinary practices employed by school administrators. Teachers and staff in our study are aware of the security measures because the administration updates them frequently of possible threats. Teachers and staff also observe police patrolling local trouble areas and school resource officers interacting with students, which is viewed positively. For example, the Chicano vice principal stated that the school resource officer is in the school “for the safety of the community,” but that this officer also “serves to be there for the kids for guidance, for direction, for safety, for making sure they’re being sought out.”

School resource officers, however, purposefully interact with the students who are known gang members or trouble makers. One security guard speaks about how the school resource officer develops relationship with troubled youth:

For instance he goes out there plays basketball with many of these kids who by reputation are considered tough, the gang members, but he gets out there and offers to participate with them in these games, so he’s got rapport with those kids, the community …. He is out there and he’s able to break through that wall and say: “You matter!” And, “How can I help you?” And, “How can you see me in a light that I am here to help you and not hit you over the head every time that you think you did wrong.”

Once rapport is established, the “tough” kids are more likely to trust the school resource officers, and give them information they may seek about gang or criminal activity. From an adult perspective, these interactions are positive and help the students and community. This perspective in some ways ignores another possible outcome for youth who experience these security measures in school. For example, during a discussion in the school resource officer’s office, over 100 student ID cards were prominently hanging above the security officer’s desk. They were pinned to a bulletin board and as he discussed these students, and as he spoke about the pictures, his smile suggested the photographs appeared to be a trophy of the wonderful work he has accomplished as a school resource officer. Many of the youth on the board were alleged gang members that were frequently arrested and/or removed from school based on information received after the officer established rapport with the tough kids. The relationships created by the school resource officer are sometimes used to help students and used to thwart criminal behavior before it occurs or help in a criminal investigation. However, the faces on the officer’s board are symbolic of another problem frequently not discussed by school personnel. That is, school resource officers can use information from students to help in their removal from school which is a part of the broad process of criminalization and fits with Theriot’s (2009) assertion that school security measures policies criminalize youth of color.

In recent years, schools are reacting more harshly to misbehaving students (Welch and Payne 2010) and most of the arrests that school resource officers make are for disorderly conduct (Theriot 2009). Fitting with tenant one from Solórzano and Delgado Bernal (2001), it is possible that many of Latinas/os whose faces were on the school resource officer’s board were victims of zero tolerance policies, which are examples of discrimination and oppression operating daily in their lives. Using Solórzano and Delgado Bernal’s (2001) tenant two, we see from a school perspective there is a certain way to behave, and these behavioral rules may not take into consideration Latina/o culture. For example, it was only a few decades ago that Latina/o students used to get punished for speaking Spanish in school. Now, hanging out in large groups, or with “gang members” that were the friends and neighbors of Latina/o youth before they were associated with gangs, can be sufficient reasons to be punished under zero tolerance.

Students’ Perceptions of Safety and School Security

Using student narratives, there are multiple views concerning the perceptions of safety and the perceived effectiveness of surveillance techniques used in schools. In terms of school safety, students tended to feel safe when they expressed being respected by their teachers and involved in after school extracurricular activities. A 17-year-old Chicana stated the following about school: “I don’t have any problems with anybody, when I first started there was more gang activity going on, that was my freshman year. There’s not that much anymore.” The students who expressed feeling safe in school commonly did not see problems with drugs, gangs or feel threatened by other students while in school. Most Mexican immigrant students tended to believe school was not safe and even perceived that the security measures would not protect them; however, some immigrant students did feel safe in school. These students differed significantly from other immigrant students from Mexico because they related positive experiences with multiple teachers and other school officials and were involved in extracurricular activities.

Despite feeling safe at school, students recognized that members from more stable and affluent communities did see their school as dangerous. A 17-year old Mexicana, who was involved in soccer, expressed positive experiences when asked about feeling safe in school:

I do. A lot of people characterize it as a ghetto, but I like it. I mean, they say “Oh yea! Gangs, and fights, and shootings all the time.” It’s not like that. Like my teacher said, that another teacher from another high school told her, “Oh my God, how could you manage to go there every day?”

This quote shows that when assessing violence the existence and influence of gangs in schools we should consider that perceived threat may be greater than real threat. From a LatCrit perspective, we must shun the dominant ideology about Chicana/o and Mexicana/o youth as criminals, and keep cognizant of Schwartz’s (1989) findings that gang members have middle class values and have a true interest in learning.

But perceptions of safety and actual presence of criminal activity do not always coincide (see similar findings in Brown and Benedict 2005b) as evidenced by students who were concerned by threats to their personal safety. Youth who had negative experiences with other students and school officials tended not to feel safe in school. These youth included immigrants from Mexico who recounted racist experiences in schools with both teachers and fellow students. These young people expressed having to walk a tightrope to avoid disrespecting students. For example, a 17-year-old Mexicana stated the following concerning these tensions experienced by both young men and women:

And, you turn to look at them. Or, you bump them accidentally … and they’re like “whas’ up, whas’ up, whas’ up.” And you’re like, “sorry, sorry, I didn’t see you.” Excuse me. It’s like, “Why are you looking at me? What’s your problem? Do you want to fight?” Or something like that. And I’m like, “it was an accident, excuse me, I wasn’t watching, or, I tripped.” And, this is how they are. You can’t turn to look at anyone because right away they’re ready to fight you.

The student’s reaction to being bumped fits with Anderson (1999) work on the notion of respect found in impoverished communities and would be readily present in the racialized space in which the school is set. The kinds of reactions described above are typical when youth value respect because it takes significant effort to earn but can easily be taken away (Anderson 1999). Our research appears to suggest this notion of respect is not equally shared among all the students and they are cautious interacting with certain students who are a real threat to their safety.

Some students were skeptical of school surveillance and security. Chicanas/os and Mexicanas/os with sufficient street smarts know that if they are going to be safe due to real threats in school, students rely on informal means of security consisting of their closest friends instead of the multiple security measures provided by schools. This idea is exemplified in the following quote by a Mexicano youth who expressed the following about the people with whom he feels most safe:

My friends because they are always with me or I know where they are at … security is not always going to be there when something is happening to you, the cameras might not be there when something is happening to you, the school resource officer might not be there, so I mean, I will mostly stick around my friends.

A surprising finding recounted by students was that the cameras could be potentially negative and positive. Students appear to recognize a paradox where they believe security measures could potentially be useful because students are monitored providing a sense of safety but at the same time makes them feel like “troublemakers.” A Mexicano stated the following about the cameras:

They make me feel like we are bad but it doesn’t bother me because I am not doing bad things … they think we’re bad, like they are scared of us or something. It’s good because they know what you’re doing, if you do something bad. It’s bad because it makes me feel we’re not good students.

Students are aware of the ineffectiveness of surveillance and indicate that security measures do not deter or prevent criminal behavior. Students are creative and if they desire to bring in a weapon or drugs they find ways to bring them into the school. For example, Mexicanas/os and Chicanas/os who felt alienated from school felt there were successful strategies used by students who desired not to pass through school security. Similar sentiments concerning school security were expressed by a Chicano gang youth when asked about drugs, guns and fights:

Nah, there are plenty of drugs and guns. Security doesn’t stop drugs for anything. People fight a little but not really. If you fight you just make sure you go one-on-one in the bathroom. We don’t fight in the park, we go to the bathrooms in the back and fight in the back of that. Or, they go to the Jack in the Box, or the alley next to Circle K.

An unexpected finding in our research was that all the students interviewed perceived their school resource officer in a positive manner. Similar to what we have found in the literature (Hagan et al. 2005), school resource officers do have the potential to improve police and community relations. For example, the gang youth we interviewed had many negative encounters with the police in the streets but the school officer appeared sincere and offered genuine help when needed. For example, the gang youth stated the following about the school resource officer:

Officer Mike is one of those nice cops, one of the few. He has tried to help me but his thing is to find out what is going on but he has tried. He was always trying to make sure that we were safe. When I got shot at he was trying to talk to me.

This youth appears to recognize the relationship between school officers and students in terms of intelligence gathering to prevent crime and arrest youth; however, students appreciate the more personal and professional contact the officer has with students. Yet, the problem still exist that school resource officers are in school and can criminalize youth when in the past minor incidents would have been handled by school officials. A related theme derived from our research was students recounted being singled out for gang behavior when they were not involved in a gang. This is a major concern about the strategies, especially the use of school resource officers to address gang behavior in schools. A Mexicano student quoted below was accused of being in a verbal exchange with gang members and was reported to the principal. The student’s picture was taken by the school resource officer and he was told it would be placed in a gang book for 5 years. The Mexicano student stated:

The principal walked up and started counting people. And I was counted. And I said, “I didn’t even do nothing.” And she said, “shut up, don’t even say anything.” And, they called my parents and had the officer, she took my picture …. I was a little mad, and she asked what happened to us, and I told her we almost got suspended, and she was laughing, so that really ticked me off, and I told her “chismosa [gossiper].” And when I told her “chismosa” she got mad and sent me to the principal and I got suspended for three days. I never had these problems at school so I didn’t know why they took my picture. And it’s not like I ever did anything bad. I’m what some kids call a schoolboy. I just want to graduate and get a good education.

This student’s statement fits with Solórzano and Delgado Bernal’s (2001) tenant one, that this common belief about Latina/o schools as “dangerous” can be central to oppressive dominant ideology, and could have the affect of perpetuating negative self-images Latinas/os may have of themselves and their schools. There is a tension between increased school security and surveillance and students’ civil liberties (Beger 2002). This tension is not necessarily about increased social control, but how fairly the school rules are enforced in schools set in racialized spaces, particularly in relation to the disproportionate surveillance and punishment of racial and ethnic minorities (Anderson 2004; Kupchik and Ellis 2008). This perception of negative and unfair school practices by Chicana/o youth are reflected in our study, especially when youth felt marginalized by the educational institution. As a result, different students (i.e., immigrant, gang members, Mexican, etc.) will have different experiences, but the common thread for all Latina/o students is the potential for criminalization is very real for students while school safety using security measures may not be increased.

Significance of LatCrit, Future Research, and Policy Recommendations

Because it is projected that in 30 years Whites will represent less than half the total youth population for the first time in US history (United States Census Bureau 2008), it only seems logical that academics place more attention on the significance of race and ethnicity in research. It is also important to emphasize how LatCrit and this study’s findings contribute to the growing need for researchers to investigate the connections between schools, racial democracy, crime, and justice that go beyond the Black/White divide typical of traditional research on race and ethnicity. Because of LatCrit’s fundamental concern with racism and other forms of subordination, it is an appropriate theoretical tool for researchers who investigate Chicana/o and Latina/o inequality, injustice, and discrimination. In relationship to research that focus on youth violence and schools, it is vital for researchers to explore the complexities of race especially within group differences and its connection to other forms of oppression. LatCrit is a useful analytical tool for underscoring how students of color struggle with both subtle and overt oppression in an educational institution that has a long history of racial discrimination (Cammarota 2004; González and Portillos 2007; Solórzano and Delgado Bernal 2001).

In light of the current economic turmoil and the related diminishing resources allocated to public schools, especially in a nation with a history of marginalizing racial and ethnic minority students, is an increasing budget for school security the best use of already limited funds? Despite the price of added surveillance and school resource officers, the students who the cameras are intended to watch know how to prevent being watched. Our data indicate that Chicana/o students’ perceptions and experiences with school surveillance are multifaceted and more complex than the extant literature suggests. Instead, school personnel and administrators should facilitate the educational advancement of Chicana/os and Mexicanas/os, particularly with the clear connections between educational failure and incarceration, and this would help promote US racial democracy and justice for students.

The notion of racialized spaces as “dangerous” builds on the LatCrit perspective and is a significant aspect of this study. As noted, racialized spaces denote the actual geographical space to which people of color occupy has been socially constructed as dangerous by politicians, media, and law enforcement (Solis et al. 2009). Although the understanding of how a physical space, such as a school, is racialized is complex, it is essential for researchers to contextualize how individuals and communities are criminalized. The advantage in such a framing of research moves the emphasis from the outcome of institutionalized racism to an emphasis on the process and ideology behind the outcome, meaning racialized space. In other words, because this study’s findings do suggest that schools within a predominately Chicana/o or Latina/o youth population are viewed as “dangerous” by school personnel, the practice of increased security is legitimated. Unfortunately, this school practice and process can criminalize Chicana/o and Latina/o youth who attend this school, even those who are not criminals. Thus, it is evident as a result of our study that the notion of racialized space and LatCrit theory are appropriate tools to not only examine why Chicana/o and Latina/o youth are being marginalized and criminalized within schools but also guide policies and practices that ameliorates social inequities and facilitates justice.

As with most research, there are limitations associated with this study that can translate into questions driving further research. This study focused solely on students and school personnel perceptions of security as part of the broad process of criminalization in a racialized space. Thus, we recommend comparative research that includes Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Latinas/os from different geographic regions, as well as recognize that there may be within-group differences. Our study showed differences within the Chicana/o and Mexicana/o population and those distinctions would become more nuanced if future research widened the study sample to include Latinas/os in a variety of school settings, including those where they are not the majority. Third, although the role of race/ethnicity is at the core of this analysis, future research should explore the significance of the intersection of gender in the criminalization of Latina/o youth. Finally, mixed methods approaches are needed to fully analyze and assess the phenomenon of the criminalization Latina/o youth in US schools.

There are five evident recommendations that emerge from our study. First, administrators should recognize the possibility of criminalization in their efforts to securing school safety. Research shows that zero tolerance policies disproportionately impact students of color and lead to serious lifelong consequences to innocent students, or of those who have committed minor offenses (Insley 2001; Skiba et al. 2006). Second, alternative policies could utilize restorative justice practices. A restorative justice approach would allow students to make amends to those they harmed without criminalizing them in the process (Anderson 2004). A restorative justice approach could also utilize a number of formats to meet the needs of students and communities, and develop solutions agreeable to all parties involved (Anderson 2004). Third, schools should function and look like educational institutions rather than quasi-prisons. Students recognize larger structural inequalities evident in society, and securitizing schools with metal bars, metal detectors, cameras, and school resource officers create a disjunction and can alienate students. Worse than alienation, school securitization can lead some students to internalize their role in society as future criminals when they know that schools (like society) cannot trust them to be responsible citizens. Also, when teachers are not focusing on personal safety, teachers can focus on educating students. Fourth, since security measures have some positive impacts, we also recommend keeping cameras and security guards, but removing the resource officer. Hiring more school resource officers is another proactive approach to fight crime at the expense of students; but schools’ primary responsibility is not to fight crime, it is to educate students. Instead of resource officers, schools should build mentoring programs where they bring in prominent community leaders, and Latinas/os who could develop relationships with troubled youth, to potentially help reduce criminal and bad behavior. The school could train security guards to provide mentoring services focused on helping Chicana/o students. Finally, if school resource officers are removed from school, all police officers could be trained to exercise the community policing approach experienced and appreciated by students in our research. This type of policing could focus on developing and sustaining relationships to help the community rather than the more adversarial and aggressive style of law enforcement policing found in communities like La Victoria. In addition, this could help develop stronger police and community relationships, and in turn improve the effectiveness of police in preventing and deterring crime in impoverished communities.

In conclusion, policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers must recognize that Chicana/o and Mexicana/o students are a marginalized population within barrios like La Victoria (Vigil 1988), and crime and related problems are complex. From a LatCrit perspective, Latina/o students can be marginalized: (a) directly through what is said to them that makes them feel inferior (tenet one), (b) indirectly through what is done throughout the school that gives them the sense of inferiority (tenet two), or (c) due to how schools operate in ways that do not integrate or respect the knowledge bases, experiences, and culture of Latina/o youth into the learning environment (tenet three). Youth typically need help navigating the various social problems they experience in their communities and schools, and educators should understand that some gang members are in school to learn, and schools need to enhance pedagogical techniques to teach all students to help foster positive experiences. We need to recognize the complexity of school safety and crime, and that zero tolerance policies are not the answer. Instead multifaceted programs are needed to address school problems, including gangs (Batsis 1997), in order to ensure the academic and economic success for a growing Chicana/o youth population that can make significant contributions to the US economy. Because we live in precarious times, pursuing a democratic and pluralistic society with policies that specifically ameliorate marginalization and address problems of racial inequity is vital towards ensuring the nation’s sustainability and global economic competitiveness.