Editorials

Cesar Chavez passed away in 1993. Where are today’s heroes?

By  Dr. Sergio R. Conti, MPH

March 23, 2025 (El Cajon) -- I once asked a 12-year-old seventh grader who his Latin idol was. Without hesitation, he replied, “El Canelo Álvarez.” I explained to him that a hero is admired for their brave actions, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. Heroes can emerge in history, literature, film, or real life. They are individuals who fight for justice, save lives, inspire others, or demonstrate extraordinary courage in the face of adversity. The boy looked at me thoughtfully and admitted he didn’t know anyone like that.

If I posed the same question to a child in Mexico, they might name Juárez, Madero, or Los Niños Héroes, among others. It made me reflect on how white children in the U.S. have figures like Washington, Roosevelt, and Kennedy. At the same time, African Americans look up to Martin Luther King Jr. Meanwhile, in the Latin community, we should honor figures like César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, but Chávez’s legacy is often overshadowed by claims that he referred to undocumented workers as “wetbacks.”

The absence of unifying heroes in the Latin community is no accident. Despite being over 20% of the U.S. population—more than 62 million people—we lack a figure who can bring us together. This results from the age-old tactic of “divide and conquer,” used since colonial times. The English employed it in Latin America, fragmenting the continent into small, distrustful nations. Those who sought to divide us crushed the vision of a united “Gran América” dreamed of by San Martín and Bolívar.

The Legacy of César Chávez

César Chávez, an American labor leader and civil rights activist, dedicated his life to defending the rights of farm workers. Born on March 31, 1927, in Yuma, Arizona, to a family of Mexican origin, Chávez experienced firsthand the injustices and harsh conditions faced by migrant workers. These experiences fueled his lifelong fight for their rights.

In 1962, Chávez co-founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) with Dolores Huerta, which later became the United Farm Workers (UFW). Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, Chávez championed nonviolent tactics like strikes and boycotts to improve working conditions for farmworkers. His efforts led to significant victories, including recognizing the UFW as a representative body in negotiations with employers.

The Grape Boycott One of Chávez’s most notable achievements was the grape boycott, a pivotal part of the Delano strike (1965–1970).

The Strike Begins: On September 8, 1965, Filipino farmworkers initiated a strike against grape growers in Delano, California, protesting low wages and poor conditions.

Chávez Joins: On September 16, 1965, Mexican Independence Day, Chávez and the NFWA joined the strike.

Boycott Expansion: The boycott spread across North America, becoming a powerful tool for the movement. Chávez emphasized nonviolence and unity among workers of all ethnicities.

Victory: By July 1970, the boycott succeeded, securing a collective bargaining agreement that benefited over 10,000 farmworkers.

Context and Criticism

Some criticize Chávez for using derogatory terms like “wetback” to describe undocumented workers. To understand this, we must consider the context. In 1973, farmworkers in California earned an average annual wage of $2,500–$3,000. The UFW fought to secure a minimum wage of $2.50 per hour (equivalent to $20.34 in 2025). However, vineyard companies undermined the movement by hiring undocumented workers as strikebreakers. Faced with this challenge, Chávez’s frustration was understandable, though not excusable.

Personal Reflection

No one is without flaws. As humans, we all have moments we regret. Even so, Chávez’s achievements remain extraordinary. He and Dolores Huerta paved the way for labor rights, yet their leadership has not been succeeded by others who can unify the Latin community. Today, we face challenges from those who seek to marginalize us, yet our politicians often fail to support our fight. Perhaps it is up to us to become the heroes who will change our reality.

César Chávez passed away on April 23, 1993, in San Luis, Arizona. His legacy is a symbol of the fight for civil and labor rights.

The opinions in this reader’s editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.

An open letter sent to California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff

By Chuck Brown, Spring Valley

March 13, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) - The House passed legislation to fund the government through Sept. 30 and thereby avert a shutdown at the end of this week.

The measure now goes to the Senate, where Democrats must decide whether to support it and thereby hand Trump and Musk a blank check to continue their assault on the federal government.

In normal times, Democrats vote for continuing budget resolutions because Democrats support the vital services that the government provides to the American people — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans services, education, the Food and Drug Administration, environmental protection, and much more.

These are not, nor have they been, normal times. There is more on the line this time than just the continuing of government services. Trump says `I won’t touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.’ Johnson’s bill hammers away at all three – and more.

This time, the real choice Congressional Democrats face today is not between a continuing resolution that allows the government to function normally or a government shutdown. Under Trump and Musk, the government is not functioning normally – and NEVER WILL. It is not continuing. It is already shutting down.

I urge you to vote against the abhorrent legislation passed by the House of Non-Representatives. Then, perhaps there can be a bipartisan discussion.

Let’s not make E. Y. Harburg’s Poem a reality – penned in the 1960s. (He wrote the lyrics for “Somewhere, Over the Rainbow” and “Brother, Can You Spare Me a Dime”, among others.)

Should I write a letter to my congressman? So, your congressman has two ends, a thinking end and a sitting end, and since his whole success depends upon his seat – why bother friend?  – E.Y. Harburg

The opinions in this reader’s editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.

By Abagail Wojnowski

Photo by Miriam Raftery:  protesters at Grossmont High School this morning oppose the district sending lay-off notices to librarians, teachers, and other employees.

March 10, 2025 (San Diego’s East County) -- I am writing to express my deep frustration and disappointment over the Grossmont Union High School District’s recent decision to eliminate all credentialed teacher librarian positions. This reckless decision disregards the vital role that librarians play in student success and contradicts the district’s own values of caring, collaboration, and innovation.

As a proud graduate of Mount Miguel High School (Class of 2023) and a current UC Berkeley student, I have experienced firsthand the impact a librarian can have. School libraries are not just about books; they are safe havens where students find guidance, academic support, and community. When I was at Mount Miguel, the library was my refuge—a place to study, decompress, and seek mentorship. The person at the heart of that support system was our librarian, Mr. Jason Balistreri.

Mr. Balistreri is more than just a librarian. He is a mentor, a listener, and an advocate for students. When he took over the library in my junior year, he didn’t just manage books—he created a space where every student felt valued. He learned our names, helped us through personal and academic struggles, and made sure we had the resources we needed to succeed. When I felt overwhelmed, he would take the time to talk with me, play some music, and remind me that everything would be okay. He went above and beyond, not just by managing textbooks and Chromebooks, but by making the library a welcoming, inclusive space.

The board’s decision to eliminate librarian positions is more than just short-sighted—it’s indefensible. Cutting these roles does not save money. In fact, now the district has to hire even more new staff members just to cover the basic tasks that librarians were already doing. The nine teacher librarians we had were doing far more than checking out books—they were teaching research skills, media literacy, and responsible information use. They were mentors and educators, making sure students could critically analyze information in an era when misinformation spreads rapidly. The idea that schools can function without credentialed librarians is absurd.

If the district truly cared about students, they would be hiring more credentialed teacher librarians, not eliminating the ones they have. This decision undermines the quality of education, denies students equitable access to information, and strips them of a crucial support system. The library was the only place where many students felt safe, where they could think freely, explore new ideas, and receive guidance. Removing librarians is not just about budget cuts—it’s about fear. Fear of students having the tools to think critically, challenge ideas, and advocate for themselves.

This decision is an insult to students, educators, and the librarians who have dedicated themselves to helping us succeed. I urge the community to speak out against this harmful decision. Our students deserve better, and our district leaders must be held accountable for dismantling—not protecting—one of the most essential parts of our education.

Frustrated, disappointed, and demanding better,

Abagail Wojnowski, Mount Miguel High School, Class of 2023 UC Berkeley Student

The opinions in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org

Former national park worker speaks out on Trump renaming tallest U.S. peak

By Walt Meyer

March 2, 2025 (San Diego) -- Because I worked in Denali National Park during the summer of 2024, lately people have asked me about the naming of Mount McKinley. I talked about this in one of the lectures I gave at the Denali Education Center.

I spent that entire summer in Alaska, visiting five of its eight national parks, including Gates of the Arctic, far north of the Arctic Circle, and I learned a great deal about the 49^th state and its indigenous people.

Prior to my extended stay up north, for some reason, I had thought that Mount McKinley was renamed for the 25^th president after he was shot, just as after John F. Kennedy was assassinated many post offices, schools, and even an airport were renamed for him. If that had been the case, taking away the name of Denali might have been a little more forgivable.

But that was not the case with Mount McKinley. Denali was renamed for William McKinley before that governor of Ohio was even president. In 1896, some gold miners from Ohio who were trying to strike it rich in Alaska (along with thousands of others from all over the world), had the brilliant idea to rename the biggest mountain they had seen for McKinley who was then running for the Republican nomination for president.

In addition to wanting to support a fellow Ohioan, they had another motive: money. McKinley was running on the gold standard and these miners reasoned that if he was successful in taking the White House, and the US dollar was to be backed by gold, the government would have to buy up tons of the precious metal and that would drive up the price of gold and make them all rich.

The locals, even the white men who climbed it in the coming decades, still referred to it as Denali, which in the Athabascan language of the local indigenous peoples, meant “the big one” or “the tall one” or “the great one.” The name Mount McKinley was only used by “outsiders” as people from the lower 48 were called by the “Sourdoughs,” the people who came to Alaska to stay.

When the boundaries of Mount McKinley were vastly enlarged under the terms of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980, the indigenous people were given a seat at the table, which had been a rare thing in the US government’s treatment of native peoples. Among the things the tribes asked for was the restoration of some of their hunting rights in the expanded park and the restoration of their name for the highest mountain in North America. The National Park Service agreed and changed the name of the park to Denali National Park.

But the tall peak itself was under the purview of the US Geological Survey which is in charge of place names. Anytime the government hinted at changing the name, they were met with a mountain of resistance, primarily from the Ohio congressional delegation who did not want their home state’s martyred president stripped of his namesake mount.

Any president who tried to rename the mountain risked losing the key state of Ohio in the next election, so the park was Denali, but the mountain stayed McKinley for over two and a half decades, when President Barack Obama, as he was nearing the end of his second term, signed an executive order restoring the name. He waited until his term was almost over so he would not have to deal with the fallout for long. Alaska rejoiced. Ohio pouted.

When people would ask me why they “renamed” the mountain to Denali, I would politely correct them and say that the name of Denali was restored, not renamed. It had been Denali for millennia until some Ohio gold miners renamed it as a political stunt.

William McKinley never set foot in Alaska and never saw the mountain, so it makes more sense for it to have its ancient name, a name that means something. 

Walt Meyer is a San Diego-based author who has worked at multiple national parks. 

The views in this editorial reflect the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.

By Mel Gurtov

March 1, 2025 (Washington D.C.) -- Imagine that during World War II, at the height of Nazi Germany’s blitz of Britain, President Roosevelt invited PM Winston Churchill to Washington and humiliated him with derisive comments about Britain’s looming defeat and failure to thank the President for US support. Unthinkable, of course, but that’s exactly what happened when Ukraine’s President Volodymir Zelensky visited Washington and had to endure Donald Trump’s appalling interrogation. 

Today’s headlines speak of a “collision” and a “blowup” between the two leaders, but it was far more than that. It marked an historic American retreat from Europe and from international responsibility.

But before that drama played out, there were visits to Washington by the French and British leaders. Neither received any indication that the US might backstop a NATO presence in Ukraine should Ukraine and Russia reach agreement to end their war. 

France’s Emmanuel Macron was forthright in insisting that “peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine” or “a ceasefire without guarantees.” Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer tried to stroke Trump’s ego and fared better, bringing an invitation to visit from King Charles and getting Trump to consider not increasing tariffs on Britain.

Whether by design or circumstance, the Trump-Zelensky meeting was a setup for failure. The planned signing ceremony for a one-sided minerals deal descended into an argument, almost a shouting match, something never before seen in the Oval Office and captured on live TV. 

It began with JD Vance’s assertion that diplomacy was the path to peace. Zelensky challenged that, noting how untrustworthy Putin has been in the past when agreements were signed. That led to a heated exchange during which both Vance and Trump told Zelensky he was being disrespectful of the Oval Office and had not said “thank you” to the US. (Actually, CNN counted 33 times that Zelensky has thanked the US for its support.) 

Trump told Zelensky, ‘You’re not really in a good position, you don’t have the cards right now, you’re gambling with World War III.” “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out,” Trump threatened. “And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out and I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.”

Aftermath

After Zelensky left the meeting, Trump said it was “meaningful” but that Zelensky “is not ready for peace. He can come back when he is ready for peace.” Well, ready for a just peace, not peace at any price. A joint news conference planned for after the meeting was cancelled.

While Trump and Vance will never waver in believing that Zelensky was ungrateful and should have kowtowed to the President, theirs was a disgraceful performance. The leader of a country that has endured three years of bombardment, enormous losses of life and economy, and Putin’s war crimes should not be treated as a supplicant. 

For Trump to remind Zelensky of the weakness of his position (“I know,” said Ukraine’s president) and then to expect him to accept terms imposed by the US and Russia is entirely unacceptable—and another example of Trumpian appeasement. After the meeting, Zelensky said on Fox News that he regretted the angry exchange but would not apologize, saying he wanted Trump “to be more at our side.”

For now, the minerals deal is off the table. It should be, since not only is it far too favorable to the US; it also turns out to be far more complicated than initially presented. For one thing, Ukraine’s supposed wealth in rare earths and other valuable minerals may be considerably exaggerated. 

Some experts say that at best, the reserves remain to be determined, and the costs of extraction could be monumental. Moreover, some mines are in Russian-controlled territory. The Russians have apparently offered a deal for US ownership. That would mean US mining in occupied land, another heavy blow to Ukrainian sovereignty.

In Trump’s view, the minerals deal is supposed to substitute for a military commitment to Ukraine’s security. The idea is that the Russians would not dare attack knowing that US contractors were busy mining for Ukraine’s lithium. But that’s hardly a security commitment; rather, it’s an excuse for non-involvement. 

At his first cabinet meeting, Trump said “I’m not going to provide security guarantees beyond very much. We’re going to have Europe do that.” In short, Ukraine cannot count on the US to backstop Europe—an enormous policy shift that leaves any Ukraine-Russia peace agreement likely to fail.

America in Retreat

Nearly every European leader rallied behind Zelensky. All issued statements in support of him, in direct contrast with fulsome Republican support of Trump. A senior Ukrainian official said Zelenskyy spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and President of the European Council Antonio Costa after he left the White House, describing all the conversations as “supportive” of the Ukrainian leader. 

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, told Zelensky: “Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President.” Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country would always support Ukraine. “We must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.” 

Only Hungary’s Viktor Orban and the former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev took Trump’s side—in itself an indication of where things stand these days, which is that the US enjoys good relations with Russia, Iran, Belarus, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and just about nobody else.

Donald Trump evidently wants to return world politics to spheres of influence, with the US in control of the Americas, China predominant in Asia, and Russia the principal power in Europe. With US-Russia relations moving toward normalcy, and Israel in the driver’s seat in the Middle East, all it takes to realize Trump’s vision is for China to bend to Trump on trade. 

Principles, values, and commitments are out the window; pure self-interest in a world run by autocrats is all that matters. What can possibly go wrong?

Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at In the Human Interest. 

The opinions in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.

By S.E. Michael

Photos: CC via Bing

February 27, 2025 (San Diego) -- Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress ran on a pro-life platform. But it’s clear from recent actions of the Trump administration that its leaders don’t care about babies. Its actions are putting lives and wellbeing of millions of infants and children at risk, both around the world and here in the U.S.

Cutting off U.S. Aid including food in famine-stricken areas, clean water and medical supplies without notice, for instance, means that “millions of children will suffer and thousands may die” around the world, according to an analysis by First Funding for Children. Ships laden with food were prohibited from unloading, leaving food to rot rather than save lives of starving children, CBS reports. The United Nations warns of “mass death” in Sudan from starvation and is seeking donations after the U.S. abruptly cut off all aid.

Similarly, Republicans’ Congressional budget cuts to Medicaid, school lunch programs, and the child tax credit will all harm children.

Mass federal firings by the Dept. of Government Efficiency (DOGE) include workers who ran childcare and Head Start programs and also ended a program to improve maternal healthcare for pregnant women, threatening the wellbeing of their unborn  babies.

Cuts to medical research will “will limit access to effective health care treatments and diagnostics for patients” and “threaten the ability of children’s hospitals to provide future groundbreaking cures for children,” according to a press release from the organization representing children’s hospitals.

Robert F. Kennedy Junior, the anti-vaxxer named Secretary of Health and Human Services, is considering changing recommendations for childhood vaccines such as measles and polio, an action that if carried out could put children at risk of dying or being left paralyzed from devastating and preventable childhood diseases.

The Trump administration is also pushing to deport undocumented children who entered the U.S. alone, putting their lives and safety at risk and to cut off infant assistance funds for migrant babies, as well as legal assistance for unaccompanied minors.

Cuts to the department of Education, which Trump eventually hopes to eliminate, would harm children with disabilities, PBS reports. NBC reports that if Trump is successful in eliminating the department of Education, it would harm the most vulnerable students,  such as by ending federal funding of schools, increasing class sizes for all public school students, eliminating federal funding for students with disabilities, ending civil rights protections for minority students, and grants to assure equal access to education for all children.

Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse is best accomplished by a careful, extended examination of individual programs—not slashing and eliminating entire programs and departments such as USAid and the Department of Education, nor gutting funds for children’s health research and successful childhood vaccine programs, nor eliminating childcare options for working parents, or taking away all protections for vulnerable immigrant children unaccompanied by parents or guardians.

These are politics of cruelty, not compassion. If you care about the lives of babies and children, now is the time to speak out and let your elected members of Congress know that policies harming children are unacceptable and must change.

S.E. Michael has written about medical issues for trade journals and newspapers, and is the parent of child cured of a life-threatening condition through a procedure at a children’s hospital made possible by federally funded medical research.

The opinions in this article reflect the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org

By Patrick Cameron, El Cajon

February 13, 2025 (El Cajon) -- In one of Donald Trump’s first acts in office, he stripped away protections for schools, hospitals, and places of worship from immigration enforcement. These were once safe spaces where people could learn, receive health care, and pray without fear. Now they have been turned into targets for ICE raids.

This is unconscionable. As the world’s largest historical climate polluter, the United States has a responsibility to immigrants. Our pollution is causing the climate chaos — droughts, floods, hurricanes, rising waters — that is forcing people in Latin America, Asia, Africa and elsewhere to leave their homes. Others are fleeing violence, poverty, and hunger — all of which are caused or made worse by the climate crisis.

People have the right to be able to leave their homes and migrate with dignity to find safe haven. But right now, immigrant families are facing the unimaginable: the fear that seeking education or health care could mean deportation, or that a peaceful moment of prayer might be shattered by ICE agents barging in.As municipal leaders, mayors have the power to fight this. They can protect immigrant families by ordering police not to participate in ICE raids and even to block ICE agents’ entry into schools, hospitals, and places of worship.

The future of so many families in our communities is on the line. We must call on local leaders to do the right thing, even as the federal government does not. I’m writing to urge mayors to hear this call and take action to protect immigrants.

The opinions voiced in this reader's editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East CountyMagazine. To submit an editorial for consideration,contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org(link sends e-mail) 


 

I will continue leading this fight, and I challenge my colleagues in Sacramento to do the same. The question is: Will they act before it’s too late?

The opinions voiced in this reader's editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East CountyMagazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.(link sends e-mail)

By a school counselor, who asked to remain anonymous

Photo:CC by SA via Bing

February 13, 2025 (El Cajon, CA) -- The Grossmont Union High School District is set to eliminate 22 school counseling positions next year. This is not just a number—these are people who are on the frontlines, working day in and day out to support our students through mental health crises, academic struggles, and life challenges. Does the public understand what this means? Does anyone care that the care for our kids is about to drastically decrease?

School counselors do far more than manage schedules and guide college applications. We are the ones who step in when students are on the brink of despair, offering a safe space when they feel they have nowhere else to turn.

Today, I saved a life. I had a student walk into my office feeling like there was no hope left, contemplating ending their life. But I was there. I listened, I acted, and I made sure they got the help they needed before it was too late.

Now, this district wants to take away the very people who are trained to recognize the signs of students in crisis, intervene when needed, and be a lifeline in moments of desperation. With 22 counselors gone, where will our kids turn? What happens when we no longer have the time or resources to help those who need us the most? Counselors caseloads will increase by 65%!

I urge the public to recognize the gravity of these cuts. Our counselors are more than just a support system—they are often the first line of defense in preventing tragedy. We need more support, not less. Taking away 22 counselors will leave our students vulnerable, and the consequences could be irreversible.

Do we, as a community, care enough about our children’s well-being to make sure they have the resources they need to thrive? It’s time to ask ourselves: Will we stand by as care for our kids decreases, or will we advocate for the support they deserve?

The opinions voiced in this reader's editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East CountyMagazine. To submit an editorial for consideration,contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org