Oral History Interview with Tatcho Mindiola, 1999 Mindiola, Tatcho Interview conducted by José Angel Gutiérrez, Ph.D., J.D. Interview transcribed by Karen McGee José Angel Gutiérrez Transcript converted to XML encoding by Scott Holmes Center for Mexican American Studies, University of Texas at Arlington Texas State Library and Archives Commission 31 pages; 76 KB. Published online as part of the Tejano Voices Project. University of Texas at Arlington Libraries
P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, Texas, 76019-0497

Literary rights and title are owned by the University of Texas at Arlington Libraries.

 2001

Source: MS-Word file transcript of video recording CMAS No. 143b.

Oral history interviews published online as the Tejano Voices Project, partially funded by a grant received in 2001 from the Texas State Library and Archives Commission's TexTreasures program.

 Library of Congress Subject Headings Library of Congress Name Authority File Jose Angel Gutiérrez Tatcho Mindiola none English Spanish Mindiola, Tatcho Mindiola family University of Houston. Mexican American Studies Program Gutierrez, Jose Angel University of Texas at Arlington. Center for Mexican American Studies Mexican Americans--Texas--Interviews Ethnic relations Women in politics--Texas--Houston Houston (Tex.)--Ethnic relations Harris County Mexican American organizations academic tenure Hispanic influence

The University of Texas at Arlington

seal of the University of Texas at Arlington

Oral History Interview with Tatcho Mindiola, 1997 Center for Mexican American Studies (CMAS) Interview Number 143b Mexican American Public Figures of Texas Location of Interview: Houston, Texas Number of Transcript Pages: 31 Cite as: Oral History Interview with Tatcho Mindiola, CMAS 143b, Special Collections, University of Texas at Arlington Libraries. Interviewee: Tatcho Mindiola Interviewer: José Angel Gutiérrez, Ph.D., J.D. Transcribers: Karen McGee and José Angel Gutiérrez Date of Interview: July 22, 1999 Location of Interview: Houston, Texas Tatcho Mindiola Dr. Gutiérrez: All right. We are recording. This is July 22nd, 1999, continuation of the interview originally with Dr. Mindiola and he’s resigned a deed of gift just in case we forgot to do it the first time. But I think we did. And there is just two areas that we haven’t covered. I want to get into that, so let’s start, I guess, with issues and opinions because I’m sure the story of, of CMAS is going to take a long time and, and we may run out of battery or tape or both. Issues and opinions. What do you think is the most pressing issue facing Mexican-Americans today? Dr. Mindiola: Well, I think overall, education is, all it’s manifestations, you know. Keeping kids in school and quality of teachers, the quality of the schools. Bilingual education is a big issue here in Houston. Getting our population into the institutions of higher education, etc. I think everything stems from that. Dr. Gutiérrez: There’s an issue there in Houston at the moment. Are they trying to abolish bilingual ed. or modify it or make it only limited to a certain… Dr. Mindiola: Well, it’s an interesting issue… Dr. Gutiérrez: ..interesting? Dr. Mindiola: …because I’ve read the documents that are floated around and it seems to me that the changes they want to make are more symbolic than real. There’s a symbolic issue on both sides. Of course, it’s a symbolic issue in our community, not because of the language and the culture and the way the culture has been put down over the years, etc., etc., and the issues of assimilation and the implication that English is an Anglo American culture, is a superior culture, which is a symbolic issue on the other side. One of our own is caught in the middle of that and I was a little surprised that Gabriel Vasquez allowed himself to be caught in that issue. On the other hand, we’ll have time now to assess their efforts to push students into the English on, English classes quicker to see how successful those policies are. There is a group of Anglo Americans on the HISD board who have a reputation among many of us of being master manipulators and some of that may be involved here. And, some of those same people that are involved in wanting to change the policy are Republicans and of course, in the Republican party is where we find all the kooks right now, all of the anti-immigration people, all the anti-women people, the anti-minority people, the anti-bilingual people, the English only movement, all of that is in the Republican party. So I think all of that is crystallizing here. Whether or not Gabriel Vasquez knew what he was walking into, I don’t know. On the other hand, he’s, he’s received a lot of their support. He’s running for council and so he, he’s the lead fund raiser now and he’s taken on, whether he realizes or not, symbolically, all of the Hispanic leadership across the board. And has sort of gotten to be another issue that’s going to develop and will develop, etc., etc. Like I say though, on the other hand four or five years down the line we find that our students are more successful under this revised policy, he will be an angel, he’ll be a saint, he’ll be a visionary. If we find just the opposite, he’ll be a piranha, right. He’ll be, you know, Judas. Dr. Gutiérrez: And thousands of kids Dr. Mindiola: Thousands of kids, yeah. Dr. Gutiérrez: will be gone to the wayside. Dr. Mindiola: Just from a political point of view, it may not hurt him if he’s got aspirations to go on for, say, citywide elections, city controller, mayor’s office, and as long as we only make up eight or nine percent of the vote, he may be able to garner enough Anglo vote, Black vote, down the line regardless of what the Hispanics do and get elected citywide. I don’t know. Many variables are involved in this issue here. Dr. Gutiérrez: How did the vote come out, if you know, on the board when this was implemented? Dr. Mindiola: It happened yesterday. I didn’t get a chance to read the paper this morning. I don’t know. It passed yesterday. I think there were two, maybe three dissenting votes, but I’m not sure. Dr. Gutiérrez: Ok. Well then let me ask you, which is most effective Mexican-American organization today? Dr. Mindiola: Well, I’d have to say MALDEF, Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Even though the legal process is extremely slow and cumbersome and results aren’t always apparent, they are the ones that strike me. They are still in the forefront through the legal system, of trying to not only hold onto the gains that have been made, but push those gains forward in terms of immigration rights and in terms of political representation, and in terms of bilingual education, in terms of equity distribution of funds, public funds, etc., etc. I know of no other organization that’s involved in those substantiated issues at the level at which they are and I think they are the most influential right now. Dr. Gutiérrez: Ok. Who is the most effective Mexican-American political leader today at whatever level? Or all levels if you want to break them up. Dr. Mindiola: Well, Sylvia Garcia is an extremely efficient, careful politician here locally. She comes to mind right away. Herlinda Garcia here locally. Certainly you’d have to put Mario Gallegos and the other state reps here locally who, Jessica Ferrar is very good, Rick Noriega is very good, Joe Moreno is, is a rookie. He’s new. He’s yet to be tested. But certainly his sentiments are in the right place. Mario Gallegos, his sentiments are in the right place. But they are all still relatively new in office. Mario hasn’t been a senator but just for a couple of terms and Jessica a couple of terms, etc. On the statewide level, I don’t see any names that are as prominent. Nor do I see any names at the national level of Mexicanos or Latinos in general that have surfaced, that people identify with etc., etc. The changes that I see occurring nationally have to do more with the development of the popular culture, the ascension of Ricky Martin, say for example, and his music and the way he’s bringing attention to what they are now calling Generation N and how he’s making bilingualism a sophisticated thing to be via his music, etc., etc., etc. And it’s more of the Hispana, how do I say the Hispanaization of, of our culture and more into the main stream. It’s less Mexicano based and more Latino based, you know, Puerto Ricans and Cubans, etc., etc. So that’s the other trend. I, I mean, that’s the trend that I see going on. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, you threw me here with this Generation N. I’ve never heard that. I’ve heard of X, but not N. What is that? Dr. Mindiola: The Generation N is this new group of Latinos, Hispanics. In fact, if you’ll get the latest issue or maybe two issues back of US Today, there’s a very brief article in there about Generation N, who these Latinos, who these Hispanics are, who are proud of their culture, who think it’s hip to speak both languages, who think it’s hip to be as Anglo as well as to be Latino, etc., etc. That’s Generation N. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, identity has always been a big issue. What, what is your narrative, if you will, on, on what the word Latino means versus Hispanic versus Chicano versus Mexican-American versus Mexicano? Dr. Mindiola: Well, the rise of the word Latino, of course, is in reaction to the widespread use of the term Hispanic which as we all know, and they’re both, they have both in common as their umbrella terms, meant to encom, to encompass more than just the Mexican-American population. The problem with Latino that Hispanic doesn’t have is the gender one because you have, you have, Latino is, is the masculine use of the word as opposed to Latino, Latina and that’s led to all sort of semantic gymnastics where you see Latino/a or Latina/o. You know, Latina/o or Latino/a, which to me is unfortunate, you know. I think it’s a slaughter of the language, but I understand the politics behind it. I particularly don’t like it. Hispanic doesn’t carry that baggage. The term Mexican-American doesn’t carry that baggage, it doesn’t carry the gender ideological baggage. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, not in English, but in Spanish they all do. Dr. Mindiola: Yeah. Right. Ok. But in, in, in other ways they carry other baggages. People don’t like the word Mexican-American, the hyphenated American kind of syndrome. People don’t like Hispanic because of it’s association with things. Espanol and blah, blah, blah. So it comes with other baggage. And who knows where we are going? I, I think we’ve run out of terms. I don’t know what other term they are going to call us now, right. The word Chicano, you know, we all know that, if you’re in Mexican-American studies, you know the history of that term. The working class term. But it’s suffered from the same gender bias that the other terms did. My friend Max Martinez once said, when we were asked what is a Chicano, and Max says a Chicano is a pre-Mexican-American, no, pre-Hispanic Mexican-American. So we killed three birds with one stone right there, right. A Chicano is a pre-Hispanic Mexican-American, you know. Dr. Gutiérrez: How is Max Martinez? Dr. Mindiola: Max is, is hanging in there. I haven’t talked to him in a couple of months, but you know, he’s Dr. Gutiérrez: Still in Smiley, Texas with his relatives? Dr. Mindiola: No, he’s back in San Antonio. Dr. Gutiérrez: Oh, he’s back in San Antonio. By himself? Dr. Mindiola: He’s with his mother. Living with his mother. Dr. Gutiérrez: Uh huh. Dr. Mindiola: So, the identity issues will be there. I mean, when I try to think, you could have predicted Latino, you could have predicted maybe even Hispanic, but I don’t know where we go from there with the use of another term. Latino. I mean, I don’t know, I don’t know what other term is out there that we would use. The, the good side of it, of course, is that it’s more national, it’s more palatable to many people. The downsize of it is it tends to distort the various sizes of the groups, the various histories of the groups, and the various circumstances which each group faces. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, let’s delve into that. What are the underpinnings of tension between Chicanos or Mexican-Americans and Mexicanos from Mexico? Dr. Mindiola: I think issues of assimilation, inability to communicate, relate. I think there is some academic issues, at least that I’ve noticed in some of the schools. Many Mexicanos come here and do very well in school, very well, and many Mexican-Americans don’t. And I think, you know, that tends to add some divisions. I think out in the broader community, maybe some economic issues, a perception on the part of some Mexican-Americans that immigrants may be taking jobs or holding wages down. The traditional arguments. On the other hand, on balance, I think there are more things though that unite the two communities than divide them. First of all is just the biological connection. Many young folks, their parents or their grandparents are or were from Mexico, so there’s a connection there. Many people are vividly aware of how immigration has kept the culture alive, dynamic, and how immigration has stimulated the economy, etc., etc. So in balance, I think they’re probably more issues that unite us than divide us. Dr. Gutiérrez: What about the underpinnings of tension between Mexicanos, Chicanos, and Central Americans or other Latinos that are, that are not as numerous here in the Houston area or in Texas? Dr. Mindiola: Well, I think that’s an issue that’s coming down the pike. Here in Houston, what has happened is that the, the other Latino groups, especially the Central and South, Central Americans, have tended to form their own enclave out in the Southwest part of town. They are still very much immigrant based; they are still very much floaters in the sense that there is not many that are homeowners. They are living in the apartment complexes out there and all the issues that brings to bear socially and economically. And there is not much connection between those groups and the traditional Mexican-American organizations. And their issues tend to be immigrant driven. A lot of issues here tend to be driven by issues surrounding the fact that we’re citizens, you know, asserting our rights and voting, etc., etc., etc. and their issues tend to be immigration based, keeping themselves here, keeping families together, the rise of gangs, which is directly related to the immigrant experience, etc., etc. So the issues tend to be a little different. And as they continue to grow I think the populations will eventually have to come to grips with each other, with each other. Dr. Gutiérrez: Relations with Mexico, particularly the government. What ought they ought to be between those persons here in the United States of Mexican ancestry and the other Mexico? Dr. Mindiola: Well ideally for, for me, from my perspective, obviously we are in a position to influence foreign policy toward Mexico, to influence other issues and to some extent we are there when it surrounds the immigration issue. Chicanos, Mexican-Americans have probably in the recent history of the last twenty, twenty-five years they have probably played more of a major role in influencing policy directions in that area than ever before in our history. So, that’s a grand example, I think, of how Mexican-Americans now. The broader issue, the broader economic issues, we haven’t played much of a role in that. Say for example, on the issue that surfaced here recently in Mexico about whether or not Mexican citizens living in the United States could vote in their presidential elections. I know of no Mexican-American organization that took a stand one way or another on that issue and I was looking to see what was going on there. But I thought that was a very interesting issue. So, beyond immigration, I don’t know whether or not we are significantly involved in any other issues affecting Mexico. Not even, I think, significant cultural exchanges between Mexican-American organizations and Mexican organizations down there. I don’t think there, there is significance, any significant action going on in that area. Dr. Gutiérrez: Are you familiar with La Fundacion de Solidaridad Mexicana Americana? [Foundation of Solidarity Mexico and America?] Dr. Mindiola: No. Dr. Gutiérrez: Ok. What are the underpinnings of tension between Browns and Blacks, using those terms generically? Dr. Mindiola: There are two primarily ones as I see it. Economics, perception on the part of Blacks, a perception on the part of many African-Americans that immigrants take jobs away from their community. Now whether or not that’s true is, is a sign, I mean, it’s certainly an important issue whether or not it’s true, but a perception as, as W. I. Thomas said, as things perceived as real, they are real in their consequences. And then some cultural issues like language and the speaking of language in the workplace, bilingual education, and speaking of languages generally. I think many African-Americans, like many Anglo Americans in general, feel that they are threatened by that. So, I think those are the two primary issues between African-Americans and, and, and Mexican-Americans. And then, you know, the political competition. But right now, at least in Houston right now, Blacks by far win whatever political competition we are involved in, in terms of these will beat each other, each population. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, hold that line while I change tapes, I mean, batteries because went through too many x-ray machines. All right. You were talking about another area of, of tension and that’s the political power. Dr. Mindiola: Well, here in Houston I think the Black population has matured and really in terms of elected positions, have no way, have no way else to go other than just to maintain what they have. And our population has yet to mature and reach it’s apex in terms of political influence. So we still remain relatively minor players politically, say in electoral politics. Now economically, we are beginning to assert ourselves with more and more clout. There’s a verging middle class here. They have penetrated, you know, the halls of power in the economic sphere. They’re doing a lot. I tell you what’s not an issue. And that’s male/female relations, I think. Now maybe in the personal level and the family level it may be, but in the political arena, in the public arena, in the judicial arena there is not, there is not many issues. And I think that’s significant because remember we are stereotyped as a macho oriented population that keeps it’s women down, etc., etc., etc. etc. And yet say for example here in Houston, women hold significant number of political positions. There was something in the [Houston] Chronicle a couple of Sundays ago about the number of women in the Valley, Mexican-American women who are literally running things politically. And that has sort of developed without the corresponding analysis in letting us men and letting the culture off the hook about us being so macho and so male dominated, etc., etc., etc. No one has picked up on that angle yet. But I thought that was a significant development. Dr. Gutiérrez: Maybe I lost something. How does that figure into Black/Brown relations? Dr. Mindiola: Well no. It, it doesn’t figure into Black/Brown relations, no. I was saying I could tell you what is not an issue. You said we talked about education, bilingual education, Black/Brown relations. Just in… Dr. Gutiérrez: Oh, oh. This is another category. Dr. Mindiola: …talking, this is another issue. Dr. Gutiérrez: Adding to, to the interview. All right. Dr. Mindiola: The category is issues. Dr. Gutiérrez: I got you. I didn’t want to leave the Black/Brown relations just yet. Let me go back, but feel free to put in whatever you want. Dr. Mindiola: Ok. Dr. Gutiérrez: It is your interview. Just a couple of things come to mind. One is, in the congressional seats of, of Sheila Jackson Lee and I suppose Green and Vincent, but Sheila Jackson Lee is, is typical. About thirty-five, forty percent of, of that population base, maybe even the vote, is, is now Mexican-American. What’s going to happen there? And the other issue is about three or four years ago you had a, a Black trustee become superintendent with the white votes against the, the Mexican-Americans that were on the board and litigation ensued and, and hard feelings emerged and then finally, I guess, that just kind of went away. And now you have Olga Gallegos as chair of the board. I don’t know what that means, but those are two examples of a problem that existed between them, those groups, and, and the potential problem this day on the congressional redistricting. Comments about any of that? Dr. Mindiola: Yeah. There is a lot of comments to be made about all of that. What was the first one you mentioned about Dr. Gutiérrez: The districts that are somewhat Dr. Mindiola: Oh, Sheila Jackson Lee. I hope what happens there and I think it can happen this time around, is to take a significant proportion of those Mexican-Americans that are in Sheila Jackson’s district and put them over in Gene Green’s district so we can vote him out and get our representation there. But that’s only going to be done, I think, only if Sheila is protected. Let’s say that. But I think that’s the way that, that is being dealt with. I also know that while they are there in Sheila’s district, she has an extensive immigration service, extensive outreach to that community. I mean, so she’s cultivated. She’s cultivated. But they represent because their districts are contiguous. They potentially represent a margin of victory for us in Gene Green’s district if they can be put in there. In regards to the coalitions of Anglos and Blacks that got together and voted in the Black superintendent at HISD, there was also a coalition of white voters and Mexican-American voters that voted in Bob Lanier over Sylvester Turner who is an African-American. So what we have here then, is a potential scenarios. First, Blacks and Browns can get together and try, in the electoral arena, and try to elect who they want or you find the other combinations, Anglos and Blacks together electing who they want or Anglos and Hispanics together and electing who they want. And we find the instances of the latter two occurring in Houston than in the first one. You find instances like Bob Lanier and Mexican-Americans voting for Bob Lanier over an African-American person for mayor and then we find the Anglos and the Blacks voting in Rod Paige, an African-American board superintendent over the objections of the Hispanic population. So, the divide and conquer strategy, I think it’s alive and well. But I think those are always potential scenarios that we are going to see evolve. And in citywide elections or countywide elections where Latinos want to run and win, they are going to have to side with one or the other groups. Not unless we find someone who is so popular that he draws from all three groups significantly, which is also possible. But that hasn’t happened and I don’t see anyone on the horizon now that’s going to do that. So, Mexican-American or Hispanic politicians who want to run citywide, they are going to have to make some decisions as to who they are going to throw in right now. Dr. Gutiérrez: When you said there is no one being able to do that, are you alluding to the, the old real alliance based on friendship and trust and, and age between Ben Reyes and Mickey Leland? Dr. Mindiola: Well, that was one example of where Mexican-Americans and African-Americans worked together. Ben had some African-Americans in his state representative district. Mickey had some Mexican-Americans in his state representative district and Mickey would go over and help Ben with the African-Americans and Ben would go over and help Mickey with the Mexican-Americans. Certainly that’s possible and certainly that can, you know, some of that still goes on. Dr. Gutiérrez: It does? Dr. Mindiola: In those districts where there are African-Americans, yes, there is usually some, you know. Dr. Gutiérrez: As far as you know, does, do the Harris County delegation, Blacks and Browns, are they meeting from time to time or are they planning on working together on redistricting, which will occur in the Texas house to ensure the allocation, the proper allocation? Dr. Mindiola: I think there’s, there’s, I think the dialogue is open. I think there’s chains of communicating. I mean, channels of communications which are open between the two communities at the level of which you are speaking. State Representatives and Senators. I think there’s, there’s channels of communication open. On city council, I’m not sure. On the school board, my impression is that there’s not much communications between the African-Americans and the Hispanic board members. And in terms of sitting down and agreeing on what minority issues are and then saying ok. Say for example, bilingual education we understand is ya’lls issue. We’re going to stay there with you guys on that, but one of our issues is say, employment if you’ll stay here. I don’t see much of that going on in HISD and I don’t see much of that going on on, on the city council. Dr. Gutiérrez: How did Olga Gallegos get to be chair? Dr. Mindiola: That’s a symbolic. I, I don’t know the politics behind what happened there. I don’t know behind the politics. Dr. Gutiérrez: You know, it’s very striking to me that at one moment in time here, of course things have changed a little bit as we speak, but not too long ago you had Ruth Burgos Sasser running the Houston, the Harris County Community College, you had Herlinda Garcia chair of that board, you have Olga Gallegos as chair of the HISD board, you got Sylvia Garcia, the number two, maybe even 1B as opposed to 1A, the mayor, with awesome power, and you’ve got all these Hispanic women running major institutions in the city of Houston and the county. That’s unprecedented first. Second, it’s never been that number of people, all female. Have they made any difference? Are they doing politics differently than men? Is it improving the quality of life? Does it make any difference? Dr. Mindiola: Well, I would like to think it makes a difference. I mean, but I don’t know how. I mean, I, I think becoming chair of a board, say becoming chair of HISD board or becoming chair of the Harris County Community College board, I don’t know how much power that brings. I think those issues are a lot of symbolic. Now being of course, the chancellor of the system or, or being the, the superintendent of HISD board, I think they have a little bit more power than just than, than board chairman. I think those are the more symbolic issues. I, I, I, I don’t, my perception is that the females that are running these institutions as boards or as chancellors or whatever are doing a good job. They are doing a good job. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, just digressing a bit. This Orlando Sanchez is a Cuban American. Dr. Mindiola: Right. Dr. Gutiérrez: How is he able to get all these Mexican-Americans to vote for him? There’s hardly any Cubans here in, in Houston to speak of. And he’s very conservative. Dr. Mindiola: Well, initially he did and I think the last name Sanchez, he’s an attractive candidate. I think that’s where the Hispanicness of our community may have surfaced. He hasn’t had significant opposition from any other Hispanic in the community of Mexican-American, you know, so we don’t know how that plays out. He’s term limited now so he can’t run again. And quite frankly, he seems to have avoided, but with one exception on immigration, avoided most of the controversial issues being affiliated with any controversial issues even though he had some, some rather conservative views on affirmative action, etc., etc. He hasn’t been affil, aligned or identified with one particular issue in that sense. So he’s been able to, to get by. Dr. Gutiérrez: What did the indictment and conviction of Ben Reyes and Freddie Maldonado and the mistrials on John Castillo cost the Mexican-American community here? Dr. Mindiola: Well, imagewise it cost us quite a bit in terms of the pettiness of the money involved. Three thousand here, five thousand there, etc. Fifty, fifty-five thousand in the case of Ben, etc., etc. Those are not large sums of money. And perception, they were small time players because of the, you know. The other thing that came by is, that came out, I don’t think that many people know this, that Ben has high negatives among the Anglo population, so it wasn’t to Betty’s credit to be tried with Ben. And it was certainly to John’s credit not to be tried with Ben. Just split that off. John was also assisted, I think, by the fact that it was the third trial. The, the second trial and they would have had that third trial. So there was a lot of sympathy, a lot of sentiment in the community that they were being treated unfairly, that they were being singled out, etc. image-wise. But remarkably, I think that the community has survived it rather quickly and I don’t think any bad taste is going to linger very long, if it’s going to linger at all. I hardly hear anyone talk about it at all anymore. Dr. Gutiérrez: No, they are now talking about Ruth Burgos Sasser’s resignation or threatened resignation and the retreats. What’s going on in, in that? Dr. Mindiola: I, I don’t understand the dynamics of the conflict that she’s having with other board members. You know, those board members and it’s up, what I hear, for what I do know, it’s traditional or rather I would say a providence surfaces many times when you have boards with single member districts, that is each representative from the district meddling maybe at levels where it shouldn’t be. Micromanaging maybe. And what I hear is that that’s one of the issues that she has to deal with. The board members that are coming there representing certain districts are micromanaging their, their districts in terms of employment, in terms of wanting programs there, etc., etc., etc., etc. So, that’s one of the issues and, and not letting her set or interfering with her ability to set policy which is universal or, or countywide in her case and HISD wide in the case of, of the school district. But I think it, you know, it’s an issue that always surfaces when you have boards and then you have representatives from single member districts that come and that’s their concern, is their district that they represent because that’s how they get elected. Dr. Gutiérrez: You were very active and instrumental in, in developing the National Association of Chicano Studies. Now it’s become one of those " O " and" A. " Chicano/Chicana studies. And I think the Chicana comes first in the title. But you’ve kind of dropped out of the scene and the organization is, is, is very focused on, on gender issues and, and sexuality. What has happened now with NACS as a result of that? Dr. Mindiola: Well, NACS has always been a strident organization and hence it tends to turn many people off. The politics, the shrillness of the organization and it’s a forum. It’s a forum for academics and politically inclined students, graduate, under-graduate students to go and, and engage and indulge themselves in, in the political rhetoric or their political ideologies. And it’s always been a highly political organization, highly politicized, but the focus has moved away from Marxism and assimilation and the appropriate model now to gender issues, etc., etc. hasn’t done away or hasn’t diluted this strident militant posture which the organization has always had. And that’s good. That’s good in many respects. But I think as the organization has evolved it has moved away more and more and more from an academic concern and more and more with, in, in, in terms of research, and more and more in terms of a political concern. And I think that’s, that’s unfortunate. I know, for example, in the last meeting they had in San Antonio, they voted down setting up a faculty caucus. Now this is supposed to be an academic organization. Now the faculty cannot caucus together. First point, the fact that you had to go to the business meeting and propose that the faculty have a caucus is significant statement. It speaks directly to this lack of influence which faculty now have in the organization and hence a dilution of research emphasis that the organization, I think, initially started out with. You can be as radical as you want on all the issues, but it was also still some pretty serious research that was represented and conducted. Specifically to go and speak to NACS and it’s moved away from that. It’s moved away from that. And, and so when academics go, they sort of get turned off. One because of the, what appears to be a lack of emphasis on research and then two, the litmus test which you always must pass in order to be a vocal member of NACS. That is, you had to be pro-bono, pro-gay, pro-Chicano, pro-Mexicano, anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-capitalism, etc., etc., etc., etc. And to stray from the party line, you run the risk of being publicly chastised. At NACS, there’s nobody that wants, of course, wants to be subjected to. But some of us have been subjected to nevertheless. And I think, you know, as I got a little older, I just, I don’t know, my zeal for the organization and the kind of direction that I saw it going in sort of dampened. It’s still a very viable organization, still very, probably the most progressive academic organization that we have. And some very bright people involved and highly politicized people. And I think that’s very necessary in our community. Dr. Gutiérrez: It’s very interesting to me to note that NACS, TACHE, the Texas Association of Chicanos and Higher Ed. and HACU, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, which is a little different thing, but still higher ed., that among all the three there does not exist a legal defense fund for professors who don’t get promoted, don’t get hired or, or don’t get tenure. Why do you think that has been? We’ve never come together on that and MALDEF, certainly, has never pursued a case involving a, a loss of promotion or tenure or job opportunities in higher ed. for, for Mexican-Americans. Dr. Mindiola: Well, I know in TACHE and the case of NACS and, and I know less about HACU, but I know that in TACHE there have been conversations about doing just that, but they have never been able to have the substantial funds to do it. Second of all, many of, of TACHE members tend to be higher educational administrators who are directly involved in some of these issues and maybe that puts a little damper on some of their enthusiasm for this issue because essentially they would be attacking the institutions that they work for. NACS, the issue has been alive and talked about probably every year that NACS has been available if you go to the business meetings. It’s always brought up. So and so is having tenure here. Send a resolution condemning, etc., etc., etc. But it’s never been able to generate the funds to get involved in, in these issues, but it’s been talked about extensively. But it’s just never had the resources to do so and they have done things like send letters to chancellors and send letters to departments and send letters to evaluation committees or send letters of protest where decisions have been made that seem to be unfair. But they’ve never had the resources to become involved in litigation and I don’t know whether or not they should because you’d have to have a lot of resources for everybody that has trouble in academia. You know, I, I don’t know. I would like to see it more as a, as a more viable censure organization. That is that NACS has such prestige that it issues a censure against a particular college or university or department when there’s evidence of malfeasance or unfairness, etc., etc., etc. But NACS hasn’t done that. NACS has not. And, and a lot of that has to do with turn over in the leadership, the politics of the situation, etc., etc. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well given that, how come they don’t ask MALDEF to do that? Dr. Mindiola: I don’t know. That’s a good question. That’s a good question. I don’t know why MALDEF has not elected to become involved in these academic institutional fights. Dr. Gutiérrez: Or given that, why don’t they approach Irma Ranger, chair of the house sub committee on higher ed.? Dr. Mindiola: Well, I know Irma’s been, there have been a lot of tenure issues that have been brought to her attention. Now, what she’s done about them I don’t know, but I know that there’s been many tenure issues that have been brought to her attention over the years. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, you’re one of the walking wounded that survived. Dr. Mindiola: That’s right. Dr. Gutiérrez: You’ve got your Purple Heart. Tell us that story about your tenure fight and, and your issues here at the University of Houston. Dr. Mindiola: I think, I think this is on the first tape. The tenure issue, yeah. Dr. Gutiérrez: Ok. Dr. Mindiola: Yeah. Dr. Gutiérrez: I, I don’t remember. Ok. Well then, tell us about the founding of, of CMAS, the program that you run. How long you’ve been director, the stages it’s gone through; why it’s still a program, not a department; those kinds of things and I’ll just let you be a long narrative of that. Dr. Mindiola: Well, the program was established in 1972. It comes out of that era of Chicano studies programs being established throughout the Southwest, California, and Texas primarily. And you know, there’s, there’s just a couple of stages that it has gone through. The first stage is Mexican-American studies without funds and the second stage is Mexican-American studies with funds. And Mexican-American studies with funds has been able to grow and establish itself, in my opinion of course, I’m biased. It’s one of the better programs in the country. Dr. Gutiérrez: Twenty-six years now? Dr. Mindiola: Twenty-six years. One of the more viable ones and, and one of the more, one that has steadily made a contribution toward improving the presence of Mexicans and other Latinos on campus; students, graduate students as well. And, and in trying to stimulate research, etc., etc. in the community. So, the issue is always one of funding. There’s never been enough funds to do what we can do, should do, and what I hope we will do in the future. But I think we’re at a point now where our big issue now is one of facilities. We want our new building. We want our own building. So then that will give us the room that we need to grow in the directions that we need to grow in. We need to add a public policy segment, component, and then the other components of the program; the visiting scholars program, the graduate fellowships, and then the undergraduate recruitment all need to be extensively expanded. We could do a lot more in the area of graduate fellowships for example. We give out a couple a year. We’ve supported sixteen, eighteen students over the years. We need to double, triple that and do it fairly quickly. We have never considered, and I, I have no objection if another group wants to get together and move in the direction of establishing a department. That doesn’t necessarily threaten our existence as a center. But departments come with a lot more issues than what the center deals with now. Departments come with issues of curriculum, enrollment, the number of majors you have, hiring your faculty, etc., etc. and that’s a little different direction than what we, we do now. I’m not opposed to anyone, I’m not opposed to a department, but I am opposed to taking the center’s resources and using those to set up a department because most departments do not do undergraduate recruiting. Most departments do not do the community outreach that we do. Most departments do not sponsor visiting scholars. Most departments do not hold annual conferences and etc., etc. Most departments are concerned with curriculum, the number of majors they have, tenure issues, etc. Dr. Gutiérrez: How did the initial funding come about? Dr. Mindiola: It came about through, the major funding comes through a line item and there was a whole series of, of issues surrounding the line item and I became the director back in 1980. We got, our budget was almost nonexistent. And I spent some time, a year, year and a half, requesting funds from the administration and bankers, you know. Quickly realized that I was banging my head against the wall and I learned then that all these administrators say the same thing, you know. I, I don’t have any money. I don’t have any money. And so it was very difficult to get money from the administration to expand the program. We were less than a step-child. And so then with the election of Roman Martinez to the state house back in the ’85, ’87, that was a significant turning point for the center because he and I worked together and he was able to help us get a line item. And it’s through the line item that we were able to establish ourselves as a more viable program. But it continues to be an issue. You know, every two years, as budget issues are everywhere with the state, you know, you got to watch what you are doing, you got to watch your funds, you got to have your political ducks lined up, etc., etc. Dr. Gutiérrez: So, are you saying that you still are not at the funding level you wish within the administration’s budget and you have to go to the legislature on your own? Dr. Mindiola: We have never been adequately funded from the administration. And like I said, the decision was made thirteen, fourteen years ago to stop fighting with the administration and just go directly to the legislature and get our money. Now, the administration does give us some funds. They’ve always provided a modest amount of funds for us, but the administration, in my judgement, would have never given us the almost one million dollar budget that we have now. Dr. Gutiérrez: So you continue to go to the legislature to fight for keeping Dr. Mindiola: I continue to go. Dr. Gutiérrez: that or getting more? Dr. Mindiola: Giving, giving, giving us money and getting more. Dr. Gutiérrez: And, and they don’t object? Dr. Mindiola: Who? Dr. Gutiérrez: The administration. Dr. Mindiola: Well, the administration may object to some of my tactics. They may not like it. I don’t always follow the appropriate channels. But that’s just life in the, you know, in the ivory tower. Dr. Gutiérrez: The programs that you’ve got, would you characterize your, your center as, as an urban experience as opposed to say, the program at UTEP that’s more border and, and frontier kind of studies? Dr. Mindiola: Yeah. Absolutely. The center here is defined by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. And that is Houston, a major urban area, with all that entails. If we were on the border, we may have a border focus, if we were in the rural area, we would certainly have a different focus. But here in Houston, there’s, there’s a, it defines what we should do here and that is pay attention to the issues in the Houston and surrounding area certainly defines what we do here. Dr. Gutiérrez: The UT system centers, the two main ones, Austin, El Paso, and the budgeting or bud, burgeoning or emerging one at Arlington have, have tried to come together or maybe they already have to discuss their strategies for the future. You are all by yourself. In the UH system you’re the only program, as far as I know, and that’s one better than A & M which has none. Is there any effort between the publics or even the publics and the private, the one at Texas Lutheran that I know of, to have some sort of Texas based association of these kind of programs? Dr. Mindiola: No. No. Not to my knowledge. My understanding, what the UT people wanted to do was to get there and see if they somehow couldn’t beef up their line item and then split it up among the various UT system components wherever those programs are found. And that, that sounds to me like a viable strategy. What may result though is that UT, which now gets the bulk of the line item, may be forced to split up it's line item more than they anticipate. But no, there never has been an attempt to bring all the directors of the various centers together and coordinate issues. I would like to see that happen. We’ve talked about it. I would like to see all the centers get together, for example say, and sponsor a major piece of research, say on the state, with each center making it’s contribution toward whatever that research is, on some collaborative effort. I think there’s room for that. I think they ought to get together and have annual conferences at different campuses with each center sponsoring a different one. There is a variety of things that we could do, but no, that hasn’t happened. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, what is the budget now? You said you alluded to that it’s a little over a million or under a million. Dr. Mindiola: Yeah, our budget is, with what the university gives us and what we get from the, the line item, it’s pushing a million dollars. About five, five hundred thousand dollars a year. Dr. Gutiérrez: What’s the, the breakdown? What, how much does the university give you and, and the state? Dr. Mindiola: The line item sits administratively at the downtown campus. They keep twenty-eight percent of whatever the allocation is and then seventy-two percent comes here and that seventy-two percent is split fifty-fifty between African-American studies and Mexican-American studies. Dr. Gutiérrez: Oh. So the line item is another example of Black/Brown collaboration? Dr. Mindiola: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Dr. Gutiérrez: And it’s split down the middle fifty-fifty? Dr. Mindiola: Split down the middle fifty-fifty. Dr. Gutiérrez: And how do the programs compare in terms of number of students served and, or do you even get into that? Dr. Mindiola: I, no, we don’t, we don’t evaluate each other’s programs. I think our program, our program is a little bit more dynamic than theirs. They, for whatever reason, continue to have leadership problems. The current director is stepping down only after about four or five years and so they are going to have to do another search. And they’ve had some, you know, turnover in leadership over there which I think has sort of dampened their growth and expansion, etc., etc. I don’t know exactly what kind of leader they are going to look for now. But Dr. Gutiérrez: I was not aware that, that this funding comes through the downtown U of H. Dr. Mindiola: Right. When Roman Martinez helped us get the line item, the University of Houston downtown campus sits in that, his district and while we were trying to get the line item and he was trying to get it for my campus, which is the main campus, during that whole process, because it took us a couple of sessions to finally get to where we wanted to be. Manuel Pachecho became the president of the downtown campus. And so, he solicited Roman’s help to help get them a line item. And so, Roman, when we, he was able to get a line item, was only able to get one at this particular session and so the agreement was that it would be administratively placed at the downtown campus, but that the bulk of the money would come over to our campus. And initially African-American studies wasn’t part of the arrangement. As we evolved and as we began growing, then we were asked about sharing the line item with African-American studies and at the time there were two or three African-Americans from Harris County on the appropriations committee. It seemed like the wise thing to do. And we were able to grow. We were able to grow as a result of, of that. Dr. Gutiérrez: Do you or, or the African-American studies program have a physical presence at the U of H downtown campus? Dr. Mindiola: No. We do not. I, they use their money, I don’t know what they use their money for. Dr. Gutiérrez: That twenty-eight percent? Dr. Mindiola: Right. Right. Now, since Max Castillo has gotten down there, the line item has grown. There is another arrangement which is coming down the pike and so I’ve got to be very careful and make sure that we get what we want there as well. But it’s gotten to be more complicated as we’ve grown and as the campus downtown has grown and as the budget has grown. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, any thoughts of expanding your program or, or helping spawn new programs at the downtown campus… Dr. Mindiola: Well, what I would like to see… Dr. Gutiérrez: …or link with Clear Lake, Victoria? Dr. Mindiola: Well again, what I would like to see is the line items be separated. Let whatever proportion goes downtown stay downtown as, as their own line item and then the remainder we’d have our own line item on our campus so that we don’t deal with this administrative complication that we have every two years. That's what I would like to see. I proposed that at the last session, but since all line items across the state were under scrutiny and since our campus has about thirteen line items and the downtown campus has only two, it was decided that for political purposes, it was best to try not to split it off because it would be creating essentially a new line item for us because of, of the way it was, the politics was in the state legislature. But the issue is going to be raised again. I would like to, that downtown keep their portion, they have their own line item and the other line item on our campus here so we avoid that complicated arrangement. The second thing I’d like to see I alluded to earlier is getting state funds for a facility. State of the art facility. Which would not only give us an opportunity to grow, but it would also be a landmark, an architectural landmark here in the community. A space that is large enough to have a lot of murals, for example. A space that is architecturally designed in a way that makes it a, a significant landmark in addition to giving us the needed office space and classroom space and student lounge and computer room that, that we, we feel like we need and deserve. Dr. Gutiérrez: You’ve spent a great deal of your time administering. You also teach, you write frequently, I, I imagine in many outlets. I just know of, of newspaper commentaries. I think you’ve even been on, on electronic media with that and you’re certainly solicited for comment. You do a lot of things. You are also very active with your church. Why do you do all this? Dr. Mindiola: I don’t know. Why, why, why do we do all this? I don’t know. There is a certain, there’s a certain amount of satisfaction involved in, in accomplishing things. Say for example, being told that the center would never develop and just being single-minded about that. Just knowing what you want to do and what you have to do to do it and being single-minded about it. When you get to be single-minded about something, I’ve found, it doesn’t make any difference how many digressions you have to take, how many steps backwards you have to take, you can still accomplish what you want to accomplish if you are single-minded. Second of all I think that a lot of my politics evolved from just growing up Mexican in predominantly Anglo Houston and the treatment that I encountered as a kid and as a teenager growing up. You know, the anti-Mexican sentiment. And it operates on a social and personal level. So that when I was in college and the Chicano movement started, from the very inception that I read about this movement, of course I was keeping up with what the African-Americans were doing with the civil rights movement and I was very much a supporter of that effort and was involved to some extent, but then when things started developing for our community, there never was any doubt in my mind of whose side I was on and what had to be done and why it had to be done and some of the rhetoric that was coming out had many, many grains of truth in it because I had personally experienced this. So, I think that those personal experiences are, are directly related to the evolution of my political outlook, my political philosophy. And then the discovery along the way because other people would tell me and through my own assessment that I appeared to have some talent for getting things accomplished, for people listening to me, etc., etc. It’s ego gratifying, but it’s never been the primary issue for me, you know. It would be, that would be a mistake, I think. But certainly the recognition. You know, it’s very interesting too now because I see a lot of people that get involved and they are in the forefront of many issues and they need to be singled out. You did this and you did that, etc., etc., etc. and I guess the recognition just comes to me. But then my philosophy is the recognition just comes through, through accomplishments. You do something and people will recognize it. Whatever publicity you want will, will flow. I’ve probably turned down more invitations now in the last, say the last ten years, I’ve probably turned down more invitations to speak or to go here or to do this and do that than I have before. It’s just, you know, it’s time consuming; it pulls me away from my family; and at one point I felt like I needed it in order to keep my battery charged, in order to keep going, etc., etc. And I don’t seem to need it as much. And even back then I can look back then, and I didn’t seem to need it as much as, as many egotistical people do that are in this business. Dr. Gutiérrez: Who are the other directors prior to you? Dr. Mindiola: The first director was Guadeloupe Quintanilla, and then, she was replaced, when she stepped down, she was, we went through an interim director with Victor Cisneros Nelson. He was an interim director for one year. And then, Margarita Melville took over for two years. And then, I took over from her. Dr. Gutiérrez: I thought there was a George Rivera or… Dr. Mindiola: No. George Rivera was never, he wasn’t here when the center started. George got his Master Degree here in political science and he moved on, but this was before the center was established. Dr. Gutiérrez: I see. Unlike other academics that move around to move up, you’ve always stayed here. Dr. Mindiola: Well, this is my hometown. I’ve never really wanted to go anywhere else. You know, I was born here; I have a large, I come from a large family; I have many brothers and they have wives and nieces and nephews and uncles and cousins, etc. etc. And Houston is a good town. Houston is a dynamic town. I never really, I was ambitious in the sense that I wanted to come back to the University of Houston and become involved in establishing Mexican-American studies. That was a, that was a vision of mine, a goal of mine when I went away to graduate school. And it turned out real well for me. Dr. Gutiérrez: I was going to ask what was next for the center, but you’ve already told us. The building. Dr. Mindiola: The building. Dr. Gutiérrez: So, let me ask what’s next for Tatcho Mindiola or is the building the last hurrah? Dr. Mindiola: Well, it may be. That, that appears, just judging from what we went through the last legislative session, that appears it’s going to be somewhat of a drawn out endeavor. And it may be, you know. I’m already sixty years old. I don’t know how long I want to, I want to continue hanging around the university. I’m already beginning to think about, you know, the future and maybe how I want to live out the rest of my life. But there’s no doubt though that that center has been one of my, my life’s accomplishments, the work on that center. Dr. Gutiérrez: One last big and tough question. What is leadership? Dr. Mindiola: Leadership is the ability to get things done, to take the initiative, and get projects accomplished and off the ground. But in order to be a good leader you also have to know when to follow. You also have to know when other people have better ideas or a better way of implementing an idea than yours. You can’t be so invested in your particular way of doing things that you don’t know when to follow as well as when to take the leadership position. Dr. Gutiérrez: I don’t have any other questions. Is there any, any area or any topic that you want to bring up or comment on? Dr. Mindiola: Yeah. I wish, I wish I was thirty years younger because I see, I truly believe this, I really, we have not, we are just on the ascent in terms of our political, economic, and cultural influence in this state, in this community, and in this country. And I feel like I wished I was thirty, forty, fifty years younger to see it all happen. To see the apex, to revel in the apex. But it’s going to happen. I’m convinced that it’s going to happen. Dr. Gutiérrez: Well, every generation says that. Can you be more, more specific or are you referring to the fact that we have critical mass or this Hispanization that’s going on or that we have more money or we have more professionals? Dr. Mindiola: All of the above. Dr. Gutiérrez: What, what is going to happen here that’s going to make it? Dr. Mindiola: Well, it’s being, it’s being driven, in my opinion, by demographics, the rapid growth of our population which in turn is the function of higher birth rate and immigration. That’s what’s driving it. But then all of that stems from, you know, the economic power, the cultural influence, the political influence. All of that flows from that. That’s what’s happening. If for some reason Mexico miraculously undergoes economic development in the next five or ten years, that will stifle immigration from Mexico into this country which is the major source of immigration in this country and for our community. Then maybe I would not be so optimistic. Maybe I would be saying well, I fear the rapid assimilation and the eventual biological amalgamation of our population because there is no more and more people coming from Mexico and our folks, you know, we have high rates of intermarriage. We are a very desirable commodity among other groups. And then biological amalgamation may have, may be moving much faster than we, we care to say and so the physical extension of our population would be something they would be worrying about. But under present circumstances that’s not a concern. Dr. Gutiérrez: Will you elaborate on that? Have you studied about the marriage? Is that the female or the male and which groups are we talking about? Dr. Mindiola: Well, there’s a slight, there’s a tendency to females to marry out more than males, but it’s not, it’s not great. It’s not great. The marriage rate here in Houston is about forty-three, forty-five percent of all Latinos who get married are marrying someone who’s not a Latino. Dr. Gutiérrez: And that’s the female? Dr. Mindiola: That’s high. No, that’s both males and females. On the average. That's high. In Los Angeles it’s gotten as high as sixty percent before. Those are high in the major urban areas. I don’t know what it is in Dallas, but certainly the intermarriage rates in Dallas need to be looked at. Our integration into Anglo neighborhoods is much more extensive say relative to African-Americans, so our rapid assimilation into, into the broader population would be even, in my judgement, would be even faster were it not for immigration from Mexico, which tends not only to bring more of our own over here physically, but also acts as a tremendous cultural generator. And if that immigration ever comes down to a trickle, then I think that the assimilation rates would be, you know, would be much higher and we’ve have other concerns. Just like the Jewish population. Dr. Gutiérrez: Returning to the larger comment you were making about the optimism and the, and the hope that you hang on long enough if somebody blessed you with thirty more years, not every body shares that. Steve Murdoch in the Texas Challenge says just the opposite. That Mexican-Americans will be the majority, but in true terms, not his words, my words, larger, dumber, less skilled, and more poor. Dr. Mindiola: Well but, but Murdoch, Murdoch has a short view of things. I’m thinking, you know, I’m not thinking of fifty years. And certainly what he’s saying is going to be a problem in the intermediate stage, but I think in terms of the long run we, we’re going to see dramatic changes. We’re going to see some dramatic changes in the long run. I’m thinking, you know, another millennium, another you know. I’m not thinking of, of, of short term which he is. I think in the immediate future. To me the immediate future is the next twenty-five, thirty years as we grow and as we put pressure on the public educational system, what he says is certainly going to be true. And I think that what he says, you know, we can move. We have to make those decisions now as to what we are going to do, but I honestly think that in the long run we’re destined to, to bigger and better things. That’s the optimistic point of view. Now, I’m assuming of course, a lot of other changes in the economy, etc., etc. Dr. Gutiérrez: Are you writing anything now for publication? Dr. Mindiola: Yeah. We’re, the research that we did on Black/Brown relations here in Harris County, we are trying to turn it into a manuscript. We’ve got a very rough draft of about four chapters. Dr. Gutiérrez: Oh, what was that about? What did you find? Dr. Mindiola: Well, that the social distance between the two groups tends to be between immigrants and African-Americans. There is more social distance between immigrants and African-Americans than there is say between native born Hispanics and African-Americans. That immigrants and Native Americans tend to have more negative perceptions of each other than say Dr. Gutiérrez: Native Americans being Indians? Dr. Mindiola: No, no. I’m sorry. African-Americans, I’m sorry, African-Americans and, and immigrants tend to have more negative perceptions of each other. The perception on the part of African-Americans that immigrants take jobs, the perception about language, that language is a divisive issue. But the African-American population is split on these issues, they are split on these issues. On the issue of language we found that the African-American population is split with almost as many saying it, that the language doesn’t bother them as many saying we don’t like to hear it spoken in the workplace. And then there are other, many other issues that, that we, we can find common ground on. Issues of equal opportunity, issues on how gays and females should be treated, issues dealing with welfare. We found a great deal of, of sentiment that’s the same for all three groups, etc., etc. But there’s clear, there’s issues that, that bring us together and there’s issues that divide us. Dr. Gutiérrez: Is the use of " we " political or is there other colleagues involved with you on this one? Dr. Mindiola: Yeah. Myself, Nestor Rodriguez in the sociology department, and Yolanda Flores Neiman who is a psychologist in the Washington State University. She used to be here. Dr. Gutiérrez: Oh, is that right? Dr. Mindiola: Right. Now she’s up there. And she, she did the part of the research that dealt with the stereotypes. Dr. Gutiérrez: I see. Any other comments? Dr. Mindiola: None that I can think of. Dr. Gutiérrez: Thank you very much for your time. Dr. Mindiola: My pleasure.