{"id":671,"date":"2014-09-24T21:00:48","date_gmt":"2014-09-25T04:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/?p=671"},"modified":"2019-07-02T09:28:07","modified_gmt":"2019-07-02T16:28:07","slug":"education-yes-segregation-no-the-1971-battle-over-busing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/?p=671","title":{"rendered":"Education Yes! Segregation No!: The Struggles To End School Segregation In Oxnard, California, 1963-1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Untitled\"<\/a>

The majority of the students at Ramona School were Mexican and Black, 1963. Courtesy of the author\u2019s family collection.<\/p><\/div>\n

The following is an excerpt\u00a0from my manuscript (rough draft),\u00a0Searching for Memories in\u00a0La Colonia: Migration, Labor, and Activism In Oxnard, California, 1930-1980<\/em>,\u00a0<\/strong>focusing on the struggles to end school segregation.<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cEducation Yes, Segregation No.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Al Contreras<\/p>\n

Second-Vice President of the Ventura County Community Service Organization1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>\u201cOxnard had a segregation problem, but the board\u2019s response was to ignore it.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0Harold De Pue<\/p>\n

Former Superintendent of the Oxnard School District2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education<\/em> concluded, \u201cthat in the field of public education, the doctrine of \u2018separate-but-equal\u2019 has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.\u201d3<\/a><\/sup> School segregation was now unconstitutional. The following year, the Supreme Court delegated the task of enforcing desegregation to the lower court with \u201cno judicial guidance on remedies\u201d but, it allowed school boards and districts to move forward \u201cwith all deliberate speed.\u201d4<\/a><\/sup> What followed after Brown<\/em> was several decades of protests and court cases over desegregation. The effects of deliberate speed<\/em> did not just impact Black children, but also Mexican children in the Southwest, especially in Oxnard, California.<\/p>\n

Before, Brown, <\/em>Mexican parents were engaged in struggles to end school segregation in Southern California with Alvarez v. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District<\/em> (1931) and Mendez v. Westminster School District <\/em>(1947).5<\/a><\/sup> Both court cases ruled that the segregation of Mexican children was unconstitutional. Those court cases influenced a generation of Mexican parents, organizers, lawyers, and teachers to fight for educational justice. As a result, the Mexican working-class community of Oxnard is connected to this legacy of educational activism.<\/p>\n

By 1963, seventeen years after Mendez<\/em> and nine years after Brown<\/em>, which ruled that the segregation of students-of-color was unconstitutional, the Oxnard-Ventura County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Ventura County Community Service Organization (VCCSO) and other organizations came together to advocate for the desegregation of the Oxnard School District (OSD). Those struggles led to mass protests on the issues of racial discrimination and de facto segregation within the city of Oxnard.<\/p>\n

This article belief examines the struggles to end school segregation between 1963 and 1974 by focusing on 1963 School Bond issue through the 1970 Soria v. Oxnard School District Board of Trustees case.<\/p>\n

1963 School Bond<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Oxnard School District had laid down the foundation of segregation during the 1920s when they utilized de facto policies to segregate Mexican children from White children.6<\/a><\/sup> As the Mexican population increased in Oxnard during the 1930s and 1940s, the local school district moved to build neighborhood schools within La Colonia<\/em>, the oldest Mexican neighborhood in the city. So, as the school district moved to develop their \u201cneighborhood schools\u201d concept, it would create Ramona School (1940) and Juanita School (1951) within blocks from each other in La Colonia<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the school district continued to expand Ramona and Juanita Schools due to the increase of the Mexican population. By January of 1963, the school district began a campaign for a new 3.2 million dollar school bond for the upcoming January 22 elections. The school district pushed for the school bond to reduce overcrowding and the construction of a new junior high school in La Colonia<\/em>. The school district argued it would save $5000 a year on the transportation of over 300 children from La Colonia<\/em> to another junior high school in the district.7<\/a><\/sup> In response to the school bond, a support committee was formed composed of community individuals and organizations, which endorsed the bond.8<\/a><\/sup> The VCCSO gave the school bond a partial endorsement but pushed for a different site for the new junior high school.9<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\"Untitled\"<\/a>

Source: The Press-Courier, 8 Jan 1963.<\/p><\/div>\n

On January 17, school officials met with the VCCSO to sway them into pro-bond position. The organization opposed the bond on the grounds that it would create a segregated junior high school in La Colonia<\/em>. VCCSO President, Cloromiro Camacho noted, \u201cthis is complete discrimination\u201d and \u201cif a school is built here, it would be 39 percent Mexican or Negro. Therefore, this is a segregated school.\u201d10<\/a><\/sup> The VCCSO was not against the construction of a new junior high school but just not in La Colonia<\/em>. The school officials informed VCCSO that Superintendent Harold DePue \u201chas vowed that he wanted to spend more money here [La Colonia<\/em>] because the children need it more.\u201d11<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On the same day, the local NAACP met and took an anti-bond position. The local NAACP stated, \u201cwe support quality education for all children of Oxnard, however, we cannot endorse segregation in any form.\u201d12<\/a><\/sup> Superintendent DePue stated his disappointment by the opposition of the school bond but \u201cwe must remember that the action taken by these groups is the right of any individual or group and it must be respected as such.\u201d13<\/a><\/sup> In a response to the anti-school bond position of the VCCSO and local NAACP, the editor of The Press-Courier<\/em> took the position that there was no racial discrimination in the school district and that \u201copposition cares less for the welfare of the families of Oxnard and children.\u201d14<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On January 20, the VCCSO kicked off their campaign against the school bond with the goal of getting a one hundred percent no vote in La Colonia<\/em>. The VCCSO organized a house-to-house drive in La Colonia<\/em> with pamphlets encouraging the residents to vote no on the school bond.15<\/a><\/sup> Former VCCSO president, Tony Del Buono appealed to the executive board of the VCCSO to \u201capprove the bonds but oppose the site because of de facto segregation.\u201d16<\/a><\/sup> A similar comment made by a former city councilman, Harold Nason called on the VCCSO to \u201csupport the bond issue for all children and then oppose the construction site if they want to.\u201d17<\/a><\/sup> The school bond caused tensions among the membership of the VCCSO. In the past, the VCCSO had supported the previous school bonds. Camacho defended the position of the VCCSO and \u201cas for many members of our group that will not join us in opposition, we respect them and their democratic right of vote and freedom.\u201d18<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On January 22, Oxnard\u2019s voters went to the ballot to vote on the school bond, which included a new junior high school in La Colonia<\/em>. Voters approved the school bond with a yes vote of 71.9 percent.19<\/a><\/sup> The school bond won 9 of 14 precincts but lost in the three La Colonia<\/em> precincts, where VCCSO and local NAACP organized against the school bond.20<\/a><\/sup> The editor of The Press-Courier<\/em> continued its attack against the local NAACP and VCCSO by stating that the residents of La Colonia \u201cwere torn by misguided efforts on the part of two small groups to defend the bond.\u201d21<\/a><\/sup> The residents of La Colonia<\/em> were divided over the location of the new junior high school.<\/p>\n

Due to the opposition, the school district requested information from the California Department of Education over the matter; school officials wanted to know if there were any legal issues.22<\/a><\/sup> The school board requested an external study on the question of de facto segregation. The local NAACP and VCCSO continued to believe that new junior high school in La Colonia<\/em> would create de facto segregation. The local NAACP called on the trustees of the school district to organize a special meeting on the school issue.23<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

By February 5, the school district informed the residents of Oxnard that they had been advised by Thomas Braden, president of the California State Board of Education to get a legal opinion before moving forward with the new junior high school in La Colonia<\/em>. Barden stated, \u201cit seems that the proposal would in effect create de facto segregation where it has not previously existed.\u201d24<\/a><\/sup> The school district agreed to seek a legal opinion from the District Attorney. Again, the local NAACP and VCCSO urged the school district to reconsider their plan for the new junior high school before they seek legal action on this matter.25<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The Press-Courier<\/em> reported that the school district was composed of 51.4 percent of minority students, which broken down to 9.8 percent (Black), 38.8 percent (Mexican), and 2.8 percent (Asian).26<\/a><\/sup> The data showed the majority of Mexican and Black students attended school in La Colonia<\/em> compared with other schools outside of La Colonia<\/em> area. At Ramona School, the breakdown was 71.9 percent (Mexican) and 23.2 percent (Black) and at Juanita School, it was 75.6 percent (Mexican) and 19.4 percent (Black).27<\/a><\/sup> Furthermore, the data was used to call for desegregation of the school district.<\/p>\n

On March 5, the local NAACP submitted numerous \u201canti-segregation\u201d proposals to the school district for consideration.28<\/a><\/sup> The proposals called for the desegregation of all schools in the district with new boundaries and pairing of schools. Althea Simmons, field secretary of the National NAACP stated that the abandonment of La Colonia<\/em> site \u201cwould be the best solution to the de facto segregation problem.\u201d29<\/a><\/sup> The local NAACP called on the school district to adopt a \u201cdesegregation\u201d plan. Simmons stated it was \u201cnecessary not only to eliminate racial segregation of minority group but also to eliminate alleged segregation of predominately white schools.\u201d30<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On April 2, Ventura County District Attorney Woodruff Deem submitted a legal opinion on La Colonia<\/em> school site to the school district. Deem stated, \u201cit would be valid if the trustees went ahead after making an \u2018exhaustive effort\u2019 to study all facets of the racial problem in La Colonia<\/em> area\u201d but \u201curged trustees to consult freely with organization and community groups in seeking assistance to explore alternative.\u201d31<\/a><\/sup> Trustee president Mary Davis stated, \u201cwe\u2019re right where we started,\u201d with no solution on the issue.32<\/a><\/sup> In a response to the legal opinion, trustee Robert Pfeiler suggested to form a community committee to address issue of de facto segregation. Pfeiler stated, \u201clet the parents get together and talk it over and bring it all into the open.\u201d33<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

By April 16, the trustees announced an open community meeting set for April 30 at Juanita School to discuss the concerns of the overall community on La Colonia<\/em> school site.34<\/a><\/sup> More than seventy residents, which included members of the VCCSO and local NAACP, attended the special meeting and it was very clear that the community was spilled on the issue of La Colonia <\/em>school site.35<\/a><\/sup> It was reported by the Juanita-Ramona School PTA that at least 80 out of 100 residents in La Colonia<\/em> surveyed supported the new junior high school.36<\/a><\/sup> On the other side, VCCSO vice president, Leo Alvarez pointed out that the issues of de facto segregation among the school district are related to the racial discrimination within the housing policies of the city.37<\/a><\/sup> The school district trustees reminded the residents that they would listen to their opinions but the final decision is on the school board. On May 7, the school board stated they came to a compromise on La Colonia<\/em> school site and will announce the decision in two weeks. Trustee Pfeiler stated that the school district and residents of La Colonia<\/em>, \u201ccan come to very sensible agreement\u201d on this matter.38<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On May 21, the school board announced it would not use La Colonia<\/em> site for a new junior school. Trustee president Davis stated that school district had to face up to the truth of the issue but \u201cthey were unaware of the idea of de facto segregation as deeply rooted problems until these organizations outlined their objectives at numerous meetings.\u201d39<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The school district would work on solving the issue of de facto segregation by moving \u201cminority students\u201d to other schools with space available and expand the size of the Fremont Junior High School.40<\/a><\/sup> Fred Brown, local NAACP president stated that the decision not to build the new junior high school in La Colonia<\/em> was \u201ca great step toward in eliminating segregation problems in local schools.\u201d41<\/a><\/sup> Deep debate continued about the new junior high school in La Colonia<\/em>. On June 18, local residents accused the school board of breaking their promise to build a new junior high school.42<\/a><\/sup> In a crowded school board meeting on June 24, the school board took the position that they would not build a new junior high school in La Colonia<\/em>.43<\/a><\/sup> Trustee Dr. Thomas Millham stated, \u201cI never realized the magnitude of the de facto segregation problem.\u201d44<\/a><\/sup> In not building a new junior high school, the school district still had issues over enrollment.<\/p>\n

At the August 27 school board meeting, the local NAACP called for the integration of the Ramona and Juanita Schools in La Colonia<\/em>. Fredrick Jones, vice president of the local NAACP stated that \u201csegregation pattern do exist in those schools, and if the board would take a mature approach, the problem could be solved.\u201d45<\/a><\/sup> By September 3, the school board responded to the local NAACP proposal from the integration of all the schools in the district but especially La Colonia\u2019s<\/em> schools. The school district suggested calling for the opinion of parents of on this issue.46<\/a><\/sup> In addition, the school district called on the State Commission on Equal Educational Opportunities to investigate claims of de facto segregation made by the local NAACP. The school district claimed, \u201cthey never have gerrymandered any boundary line\u201d within the district.47<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On October 8, the school board rejected the local NAACP\u2019s May 5 proposal to integrate the neighborhood school system.48<\/a><\/sup> In addition, the school district would not build a new elementary school on La Colonia<\/em> site. On November 19, the local chapter of Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) called on the school board to consider its recommendations to end de facto segregation within the district.49<\/a><\/sup> The school district claimed that some of the recommendations were similar to NACCP request and others had been already put into effect within the district.50<\/a><\/sup> CORE expressed that action on the recommendations needed to be done immediately, if not they would call for a mass demonstration at the next school board meeting in December.51<\/a><\/sup> The school district addressed CORE\u2019s recommendations in a letter, stating the \u201cplans for the future include doing whatever appears appropriate and with our power to combat\u2026de facto segregation.\u201d52<\/a><\/sup> By December 11, the school district announced that they were \u201cin support of integrating Oxnard schools wherever it is possible and feasible and moved toward doing so.\u201d53<\/a><\/sup> Furthermore, the school district would consider a request by Superintendent De Pue and Richard Zanders of CORE to develop a plan to redraw school attendance boundaries to eliminate de facto segregation and a program to educate teachers & administers about minority students.54<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

1970 Soria v. Oxnard School District Board of Trustees<\/strong><\/p>\n

After many years of false promises from the school district over the issue of de facto segregation, the Mexican working-class community finally took a major stand. On February 26, 1970, a class action lawsuit on the behalf of students at Rose Avenue, Juanita, and Ramona Schools was filed against the school district and trustees seeking a prompted desegregation and restoration of racial\/ethnic imbalance.55<\/a><\/sup> Trustee Kane responded to the lawsuit by stating \u201cit\u2019s a disappointment that they (plaintiffs) don\u2019t agree with us that our effort is a substantial one.\u201d56<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, the Central District of California on the behalf of Debbie & Doreen Soria and other students of color. The lawsuit alleged that the OSD\u2019s Board of Trustees \u201chad consistently maintained and perpetuated a systematic scheme of racial segregation by capitalizing on a clear pattern of de facto racial segregation in Oxnard.\u201d57<\/a><\/sup> The plaintiffs accused the school district of violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights.58<\/a><\/sup> Thomas Malley of Legal Service Association of Ventura County, Stephen Kalish, and Peter Ross of Western Center on Law and Poverty represented the plaintiffs. On the other side, Ventura County Assistant Consul William Waters represented the school district. The plaintiffs submitted evidence that the school district was divided by race; up to 96 percent of students of color attended school in the eastside compared to the 90 percent of white students attended school in the North Oxnard.59<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On January 5, 1971, a supporter of integration and key ally to the Mexican working-class community, Rachel Wong was elected to the school board.60<\/a><\/sup> A hearing on the lawsuit was held on May 12, which the court granted the plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment. Judge Harry Pregerson found that the school district failed or refused to adopt a desegregation plan. He issued an interlocutory order on the school district \u201cto submit to this court within twenty (20) days a plan that promised realistically to work now so the racial imbalance existing in the Oxnard Elementary Schools is eliminated root and branch.\u201d61<\/a><\/sup> On May 25, the school board voted to seek a stay of motion on court order integration plan to the Ninth Circuit Court.62<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

By July 21, the district court approved OSD\u2019s desegregation plan and ordered immediately implement the plan. The desegregation plans composed of pairing schools and two-way busing of students.63<\/a><\/sup> In August, Attorney Edward Lasher on the behalf of the school district filed a plea for a motion of stay on the court order integration plan in the Ninth Circuit Court. Supporters of the integration plan accused the school district of creating \u201can emergency in an attempt to bypass Judge Pregerson[\u2018s]\u201d decision.64<\/a><\/sup> Critics of the court-ordered integration plan formed the Citizens Opposed to Busing (COB), which focused on fighting the busing issue through legal channels.65<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

In the countdown to implement the integration plan in September, the school district continued to wait for a decision on the motion of stay.66<\/a><\/sup> Some non-supporters of the order integration decided to pull their children out of the school district. Dr. Keith Mason, trustee president publicly stated that he would remove his children from the school district if the motion of stay is not approved to stop the busing plan.67<\/a><\/sup> Nancy McGrath of COB stated that \u201csome parents have sold their homes and moved from Oxnard. Some who have stayed say they will educate the children themselves.\u201d68<\/a><\/sup> Two days before the opening of the 1971-1972 school year, there was still no decision made on the motion of stay by Ninth Circuit Court.69<\/a><\/sup> Superintendent Doren Tregarthen announced, \u201cwe\u2019ll go ahead and open school on schedule\u201d70<\/a><\/sup> and \u201cthe classrooms are ready, the teachers are ready, the buses are ready.\u201d71<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\"Untitled\"<\/a>

OSD Report, Sept 1971. Source: OSD Archives.<\/p><\/div>\n

On September 13, the school district opened the new 1971-1972 school year with a court-order integration plan that bused more than three thousand students to schools throughout the district. The Press-Courier <\/em>reported that the first day of busing started \u201cwithout the protests and violence that [are] ripping other cities.\u201d72<\/a><\/sup> Superintendent Tregarthen stated that the first day went smoothly and \u201cunderst[ood] the anxiety of the parents.\u201d73<\/a><\/sup> By September 14, the Ninth Circuit Court turned down the motion of stay to stop busing of students. The court stated that the school district \u201cshould have in the first instance presented its application for a stay in the district court\u201d not the Ninth Circuit Court.74<\/a><\/sup> Superintendent Tregarthen commented \u201cthat\u2019s dumb, it\u2019s a real copout\u201d on the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court.75<\/a><\/sup> Trustee Dr. Mason stated he believed the school district was \u201cbetrayed by the courts and will pursue the stay until we get some decent answers.\u201d76<\/a><\/sup> Even with the decision, the school district still had another appeal on the court-ordered integration in Ninth Circuit Court.<\/p>\n

On August 21, 1972, the Ninth Circuit Court again denied a stay on the court-ordered integration.77<\/a><\/sup> The school board voted four to one to appeal the court’s decision to the Supreme Court.78<\/a><\/sup> The new anti-busing legislation led to debates over the ability to postpone or roll back early desegregation court cases. U.S. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and William Douglas refused to grant a stay on the school district case.79<\/a><\/sup> By late October, the Supreme Court unanimously denied the request for a stay on the court-ordered integration plan.80<\/a><\/sup> On August 27, 1973, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled on the court-ordered integration. The school district argued that ethnic imbalance was created by population patterns of the city, not the school board.81<\/a><\/sup> The Ninth Circuit Court found the district court\u2019s decision as \u201cinconclusive and vague on the question of the school board\u2019s segregative intent.\u201d82<\/a><\/sup> The ruling remanded the case back to district court, which the plaintiffs needed to provide the evidence in determining if the school district had committed a constitutional violation. The ruling did not affect the court-ordered desegregation plan.83<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

On December 10, 1974, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs again. The plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers were able to provide new evidence and a historical link of segregation by revealing the school board minutes from August 1934 through June 1939, which discussed the segregation of Mexican students from White students.84<\/a><\/sup> In the previous, Ninth Circuit Court decision, it stated that the school district had never maintained a \u201cdual school system\u201d but the new evidence showed the school district had intent to racially segregate the district beginning in the 1930s through 1970s. The school district had developed segregation within the district by building two Mexican schools in La Colonia<\/em> to limit the interaction of White and Mexican students.85<\/a><\/sup> Previous Superintendent Richard Clowes (1949-1961) and Superintendent Harold De Pue (1961-1965) in court pointed out that the school board took no action on the segregation issues and had a \u201cdo nothing\u201d policy.86<\/a><\/sup> In the final summary, Judge Pregerson stated that the school district and school board failed to act to end segregation and the \u201cremedial plan shall continue in full force and effect.\u201d87<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The struggles to end school segregation left many different markers on the Mexican working-class community, the school district, and the city of Oxnard. The struggles gave the Mexican community the opportunity to speak up and defend the education of their children. Even more, those events inspirited a generation of local Chicana\/o youth to join the Chicano Power Movement during the late 1960s and 1970s. As for the school district and the city, it exposed the evidence that city founders, growers, and city officials created a segregated city divided by race and class. As a result, of the increase of enrollment and economic crisis after 1974, the school district under the leadership of Superintendent Norman Brekke transformed into a year-round district.88<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The issue of busing continued into the 1980s, as a group parents organized themselves under the banner of the Parents For Neighborhood Schools demanding the end of forced busing.89<\/a><\/sup> By 1987, Judge Pregerson removed the court-ordered integration.90<\/a><\/sup> However, the school district still needed to maintain the racial and ethnic balance according to federal and state laws.91<\/a><\/sup> As the demographics changed in Oxnard and elsewhere in California, the school district enrollment began to shift and since the beginning of the court-ordered integration in 1971 charged from 41 percent to 18.4 percent (White) and to 46 percent to 72.1 percent (Mexican) by the 1990s.92<\/a><\/sup> As noted by Superintendent Brekke, it became \u201cimpossible any longer to have the kind of racial and ethnic balance we had in 1971. There are going to be classes that 100% Hispanic.\u201d93<\/a><\/sup> To conclude, the struggles of \u201cEducation Yes, Segregation No,\u201d <\/em>influenced a generation of Mexican children in Oxnard as their parents, organizers, lawyers, and teachers fought for educational justice.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
    \n
  1. \u201cWeekend anti-bond drive,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 19 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. \u201cIntegration Ignored witness tells court,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 26 Sep 1974. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Charles J. Ogletree, All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half Century of Brown v. Board of Education<\/em> (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2004), 3. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Ibid., 125. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Robert R. Alvarez \u201cThe Lemon Grove Incident: The Nation’s First Successful Desegregation Court Case,\u201d The Journal of San Diego History<\/em>, Vol. 32, no. 2 (Spring 1986): 116-135; Richard Valencia, \u201cThe Mexican American Struggle for Equal Educational Opportunity in Mendez v. Westminster<\/em>: Helping to Pave the Way for Brown v. Board of Education,\u201d Teachers College Record<\/em>, Vol. 107, no. 3 (March 2005): 389-423. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  6. \u201cSchool board minutes play big role in Oxnard desegregation,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 19 Jan 1975; \u201cOf Children and Chicken Coops,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 26 Jan 1975; David G. Garcia, Tara J. Yosso, and Frank P. Barajas, \u201cA Few Of The Brightest, Cleanest Mexican Children\u201d: School Segregation As A Form Of Mundane Racism In Oxnard, California, 1900-1940,\u201d Harvard Educational Review<\/em>, Vol. 82, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 1-25; David G. Garcia and Tara J. Yosso, \u201cStrictly In Capacity Of Servant\u201d: The Interconnection Between Residential And School Segregation In Oxnard, California,\u201d History of Education Quarterly<\/em>, Vol. 53, no. 1 (Feb 2013): 64-89. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  7. \u201cIt costs $5000 for 305 pupils to ride to school,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 8 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  8. School Board Minutes, 8 Jan 1963, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  9. \u201c50 join committee backing school bonds.\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 9 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  10. \u201cPrincipals fail to sway CSO opposition to school bonds,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 18 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  11. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  12. \u201cNAACP joins foes of bonds,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 18 Jan 1963; \u201cNAACP, CSO, to meet to air bond issue stand,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 16 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  13. \u201cDePue disappointed by school bond opposition,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 18 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  14. \u201cA sorry mistake,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 19 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  15. \u201cWeekend anti-bond drive,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 19 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  16. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  17. \u201cThird try for Oxnard school bonds,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 21 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  18. \u201cVoting brisk on elementary school bonds,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 22 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  19. \u201cBonds win heavily; new schools rushed,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 23 Jan 1963; School Board Minutes, 29 Jan 1963, OSD Archives.\u00a0 ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  20. School Board Minutes, 29 Jan 1963, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  21. \u201cA Heartening Victory,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 25 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  22. \u201cColonia area school may violate law,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 30 Jan 1963; School Board Minutes, 29 Jan 1963, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  23. \u201cNAACP wants meeting on school issue,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 28 Jan 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  24. \u201cColonia school might break rule, state says,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 6 Feb 1963.\n

    ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n

  25. \u201cSchool plans hinge on segregation issue.\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 10 Feb 1963; School Board Minutes, 5 Feb 1963, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  26. \u201cMinority races in the majority among Oxnard district elementary students,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 13 Mar 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  27. \u00a0Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  28. School Board Minutes, 5 Mar 1963, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  29. \u201cJuggling school urged to mix races,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 6 Mar 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  30. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  31. \u201cDA ruling backs plan Colonia area school,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 3 Apr 1963.\u00a0 ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  32. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  33. \u201cSchool board candidates answer question,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 4 Apr 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  34. School Board Minutes, 16 Apr 1963, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  35. School Board Minutes, 30 Apr 1963, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  36. \u201cCitizens split over Colonia School,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 1 May 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  37. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  38. \u201cDecision near on Colonia school issue,\u201d\u00a0The Press-Courier<\/em>, 8 May 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  39. \u201cBoard kills Colonia School plan,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 22 May 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  40. \u201cOxnard may be on way to de facto segregation solution,\u201d\u00a0Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 22 May 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  41. \u201cNAACP meeting here sees prejudice on wane,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 25 May 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  42. \u201cBuild in Colonia trustees urged,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 19 Jun 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  43. \u201cMass meeting told no new junior high,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 25 Jun 1963; School Board Minutes, 24 Jun 1963, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  44. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  45. \u201cNegros pressing local school aims,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 28 Aug 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  46. \u201cSchool race issue may to the parents,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 4 Sep 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  47. \u201cSegregation Probe Asked at Oxnard,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 19 Sep 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  48. \u201cProposal to mix student rejected,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 9 Oct 1963; \u201cOxnard Rejects NAACP Bid,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 16 Oct 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  49. \u201cNegro Group Demands Oxnard Integration,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 2 Nov 1963; \u201cOxnard School evades face to face race talk,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 6 Nov 1963; \u201cRacial Leader to protest at next Oxnard School meet,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 7 Nov 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  50. \u201cCORE Cancels Study-In,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 9 Dec 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  51. \u201cSchool study plea has lie-in threat,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 20 Nov 1963; \u201cStudy-In threatened in Oxnard,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 20 Nov 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  52. \u201cCORE Gets a official school reply,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 29 Nov 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  53. \u201cTrustees Move to end de facto segregation,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 11 Dec 1963. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  54. Ibid ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  55. The children of Roberto Soria, Patrick Joe Barrios, Margaret Godina, Catalina Frazier, Lana Avery, and Josephine Trevino; \u201cParents sue Oxnard school, ask desegregation,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 2 Mar 1970; \u201cSuit demands Oxnard Schools integration plan,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 3 Mar 1970. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  56. \u201cTrustees disappointed over segregation suit,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 3 Mar 1970. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  57. Debbie and Doreen Soria, et al. v. Oxnard School District Board of Trustees, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 27 Nov 1973, 488 F. 2nd 579 (hereafter 488 F. 2nd 579). ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  58. Richard R. Valencia, Chicano Students and the Courts: The Mexican American Legal Struggle for Educational Equality<\/em> (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 68. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  59. Ibid ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  60. \u201cOxnard district voters pick trustee Tuesday,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 3 Jan 1971; \u201cRachel Wong wins Oxnard school vote,\u201d Venture Star-Free Press<\/em>, 6 Jan 1971; \u201cRachel Wong winner in school race,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 6 Jan 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  61. Debbie and Doreen Soria, et al. v. Oxnard School District Board of Trustees, United States District Court for the Central District of California, 12 May 1971, 328 F. Supp. 155; Oxnard School District Chronology of Events, n.d., OSD Archives; \u201cJudge Ok\u2019d Oxnard School integration plan,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 22 Jul 1971; School suit ruling due,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 11 May 1971; \u201cOxnard school must integrate,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 13 May 1971; \u201cParent awaiting action on school busing directive,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 14 May 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  62. \u201cPlaintiff opposes Oxnard busing stay,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 3 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  63. The following schools were paired, Harrington (grades 1-3) with Elm (grades 4-6), Ramona (grades 1-3) with Sierra Linda (grades 4-6), Juanita (grades 1-3) with Curren (grades 4-6), Brittell (grades 1-3) with Drififil (grades 4-6), Kamala (grades 1-3) with McKinna (grades 4-6), and Marina West (grades 4-6) with Rose Ave (grades 4-6), see \u201cSchool start due as planned unless\u2026,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 5 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  64. \u201cPlaintiff opposes Oxnard busing stay,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 3 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  65. \u201cSchool busing starts smoothly in Oxnard,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 13 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  66. \u201cSchool get no word on busing stay,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 11 Sep 1971; \u201cOxnard still waits stay on busing,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 8 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  67. \u201cTrustee may take children out school,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 8 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  68. \u201cCounty\u2019s first integration buses to roll tomorrow,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 12 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  69. \u201cSchool get no word on busing stay,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 11 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  70. \u201cOxnard Schools open Monday under bus plan.\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 12 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  71. \u201cCounty\u2019s first integration buses to roll tomorrow,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 12 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  72. \u201cSchool busing starts smoothly in Oxnard, The Press-Courier<\/em>, 13 Sep 1971; \u201cOxnard busing accomplished without incidents,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 13 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  73. \u201cBugs plaque busing in opening day run,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 14 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  74. \u201cPlea denied for stay in busing,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 15 Sep 1971; \u201cAppeals court reject Oxnard busing delay,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 15 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  75. \u201cAppeals court reject Oxnard busing delay,\u201d Ventura County Star-Free Press<\/em>, 15 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  76. \u201cOxnard district to press court for busing,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 22 Sep 1971. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  77. \u201cCourt denies Oxnard School petition to suspend busing,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 22 Aug 1972; \u201cUS District Court refuses to all schools in Oxnard to halt busing,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 23 Aug 1972; Debbie and Doreen Soria, et al. v. Oxnard School District Board of Trustees, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 21 Aug 1972, 467 F. 2d 59 (hereafter 467 F. 2d 59). ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  78. \u201cOxnard to take busing decision to high court,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 22 Aug 1972. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  79. \u201cStay denied on Oxnard busing case,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 21 Sep 1972. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  80. \u201cUS Supreme Court reject appeal for Oxnard busing stay,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 24 Sep 1972; \u201cSupreme Court denies appeal to halt Oxnard school busing,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 25 Sep 1972. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  81. Between 1964 and 1966, the OSD build three new schools, Marina West (1964) composed of 72% Anglo, Rose Ave (1965) composed of 19% Anglo, and Sierra Linda (1966) composed of 75% Anglo; Valencia, Chicano Students and the Courts<\/em>, 68. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  82. Debbie and Doreen Soria, et al. v. Oxnard School District Board of Trustees, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 27 Aug 1973, 488 F.29 586 (hereafter 488 F.29 586); Valencia, Chicano Students and the Courts, 68. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  83. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  84. Debbie and Doreen Soria, et al. v. Oxnard School District Board of Trustees, United States District Court for the Central District of California, 10 Dec 1974, 386 F. Supp. 539 (hereafter 386 F. Supp. 539); Valencia, Chicano Students and the Courts<\/em>, 69; \u201cSchool board minutes play big role in Oxnard desegregation,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 19 Jan 1975; \u201cOf Children and Chicken Coops,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 26 Jan 1975. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  85. 386 F. Supp. 539; Valencia, Chicano Students and the Courts, 70. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  86. 386 F. Supp. 539. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  87. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  88. \u201cSupt. to retire after 20 years,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 29 Jun 1994. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  89. Parents For Neighborhood Schools Want You To Know The Truth, n.d., OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  90. \u201cMemorable Chapter In Oxnard\u2019s History Closes Quietly,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 19 Mar 1987; Parents For Neighborhood Schools; William Water to Honorable Harry Pregerson, 18 Mar 1987, OSD Archives. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  91. \u201cSchools will Grapple with integration,\u201d The Press-Courier<\/em>, 11 Dec 1988. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  92. \u201cSchools Fall Short Of \u201971 Integration Order,\u201d Los Angeles Times<\/em>, 8 Feb 1991. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n
  93. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The following is an excerpt\u00a0from my manuscript (rough draft),\u00a0Searching for Memories in\u00a0La Colonia: Migration, Labor, and Activism In Oxnard, California, 1930-1980,\u00a0focusing on the struggles to end school segregation. \u201cEducation Yes, Segregation No.\u201d \u00a0Al Contreras Second-Vice President of the Ventura County Community Service Organization1 \u00a0\u201cOxnard had a segregation problem, but the board\u2019s response was to ignore […]<\/p>\n<\/a>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6ibJA-aP","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":788,"url":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/?p=788","url_meta":{"origin":671,"position":0},"title":"Photos: The Bracero Program in Ventura County","date":"May 17, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"I finally have time to continue my research for my manuscript! It seem that every time when I\u2019m searching the local newspapers, I always come around great photos or articles of the history of Mexicans on the Oxnard Plain. This time when I was searching for articles on \u201cschool segregation,\u201d\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Academic"","img":{"alt_text":"image","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/media.tumblr.com\/7fe8c1c01dd3e855f70f6be8a3fdc42a\/tumblr_inline_mn2iq6fEzA1qz4rgp.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2101,"url":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/?p=2101","url_meta":{"origin":671,"position":1},"title":"\u00a1Viva Oxnard! = \u00a1Viva Chiques!","date":"May 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"In the last couple of years (2017-2019), scholars, authors, and writers have published numerous books on Latina\/o\/x histories in Oxnard. We can add the following counter-narratives to the list: Strategies of Segregation: Race, Residence, and the Struggle for Educational Equality by David G. Garc\u00eda \"Strategies of Segregation unearths the ideological\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Oxnard"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/luishmoreno.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Screen-Shot-2019-05-31-at-12.13.47-PM.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":59,"url":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/?p=59","url_meta":{"origin":671,"position":2},"title":"Summer Research Project: Oxnard, CA","date":"May 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"My summer research project is composed of conducting archival research and oral histories, which I would develop a research paper and notes on the history of Mexicans in Oxnard and Ventura County. I will conduct archival research at the Oxnard Public Library, Local History Collection (Oxnard, Ca) and Ventura County\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Academic"","img":{"alt_text":"Downtown Oxnard, CA (1980s)","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/farm3.static.flickr.com\/2210\/2418325014_d584e9611b.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":765,"url":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/?p=765","url_meta":{"origin":671,"position":3},"title":"The Life of An Academic Migrant","date":"April 26, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"It seems that every time I return to teaching I have no time for writing. But, I have been thinking about writing. I have outlined the following new blog\u2019s articles; Pachuca\/os: The Criminalization of Mexican Youth and Education Yes! Segregation No!: Soria, et al. v. Oxnard School District Board of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Academic"","img":{"alt_text":"Untitled","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/farm9.staticflickr.com\/8395\/8677706027_d5b16aa280.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":681,"url":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/?p=681","url_meta":{"origin":671,"position":4},"title":"A Sense of Place: La Colonia & Bonita Avenue","date":"January 4, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cPublic histories provide meaning to places.\u201d David Glassberg, Sense of History, 18 Being an academic migrant, I always find myself searching for a sense of place, the feeling of home. Home is the location of your childhood or family memories. For me, this place is La Colonia, especially Bonita Avenue.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Academic"","img":{"alt_text":"Untitled","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/farm9.staticflickr.com\/8198\/8282833736_731213e1c4.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":472,"url":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/?p=472","url_meta":{"origin":671,"position":5},"title":"Chiques History Note #8 – James Meredith","date":"December 5, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Chiques History Notes is a series of post based on my research on Oxnard, CA. Civil Rights activist James Meredith visited La Colonia in 1963. c\/s","rel":"","context":"In "Chiques History Notes"","img":{"alt_text":"Untitled","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/farm9.staticflickr.com\/8480\/8276032892_e3ecd436b3.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/671"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=671"}],"version-history":[{"count":84,"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/671\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2300,"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/671\/revisions\/2300"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/luishmoreno.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}