Every movement has a rival. Not always an enemy. Not always a villain. Sometimes the rival is an institution that believes it is protecting the public, protecting order, protecting tradition, protecting the way things have always been done. For California dental hygienists, that rival was often the structure of dental regulation itself.
The Dental Board became the place where power lived—but not always where dental hygienists had meaningful power over their own profession. Many individual dentists supported hygienists. Many taught them, mentored them, employed them, respected them, and advocated for patients alongside them. But institutionally, dentistry held authority over dental hygiene. That imbalance shaped decades of conflict.
During the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, hygienists pushed for greater representation. In 1974, the Dental Board created the Committee on Dental Auxiliaries, but according to the draft, the committee had little to do until the early 1980s and lacked meaningful power over dental hygiene regulations.
This is where the story sharpens, because dental hygienists were not asking for permission to abandon dentistry. They were asking for a voice in decisions that governed their own training, scope, practice, and patients. It was, as March Fong argued in another context, like taxation without representation.
The rival at the table was not a person. It was a system.
And systems do not give up authority easily.
GO TO NEXT: Chapter 8 - The Woman Who Owned Her Own Practice
The Dental Board became the place where power lived—but not always where dental hygienists had meaningful power over their own profession. Many individual dentists supported hygienists. Many taught them, mentored them, employed them, respected them, and advocated for patients alongside them. But institutionally, dentistry held authority over dental hygiene. That imbalance shaped decades of conflict.
During the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, hygienists pushed for greater representation. In 1974, the Dental Board created the Committee on Dental Auxiliaries, but according to the draft, the committee had little to do until the early 1980s and lacked meaningful power over dental hygiene regulations.
This is where the story sharpens, because dental hygienists were not asking for permission to abandon dentistry. They were asking for a voice in decisions that governed their own training, scope, practice, and patients. It was, as March Fong argued in another context, like taxation without representation.
The rival at the table was not a person. It was a system.
And systems do not give up authority easily.
GO TO NEXT: Chapter 8 - The Woman Who Owned Her Own Practice