Campus Reform #1 source to College -News

Adam Ellwanger is a professor of English at the University of Houston – Downtown. His primary areas of expertise are rhetoric and critical theory. He writes political and cultural commentary on business such as human events, Quillette, American greatness, the American conservative, new discourses that remember campus and many more.

The first weeks of Trump administration have seen a flurry of performing actions intended to put US colleges and universities on notice: big changes are coming. But higher education, dominated as it is by leftist ideology, can prove one of the institutions that are most resistant to changes.

As the new “Border Czar” Tom Homan orders immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) to continue attacks aimed at deporting illegal immigrants, there is early evidence of a coordinated effort by universities to subtly challenge the power of federal authorities to enforce law .

Late last week, the University of Houston – Downtown (my employer, in the following sent “UHD”) an E email offering similar guidance to our faculty. It was only before I began to investigate whether other universities had taken similar steps that I learned my the school’s Guide is almost identical to to offered by Northern Illinois University. Previous reporting from Campus Reform showed that this is not the only institutions that give advice on how to interact with ice cream.

Despite its broad distribution across my campus, it would be inaccurate to call UHD’s guidance “politics.” Oddly enough, my university’s documents at the forefront recognize that their recommendations do not constitute “legal advice” and I am not aware of an attempt to make this guide to official policy through the usual channels with shared governance.

(Related: Fordham University issues campus protocols to ice attacks)

This is not surprising as the recommendations appear to be in line with our historical practice when it comes to interacting with law enforcement on campus. There have been at least three apartments where law enforcement authorities knocked on my classroom and asked if a particular student was present. In cases where the student was in class, I acknowledged it to the officer. Then they asked if I would send the student into the hall to meet them. In all cases I complied with. I have never received any training or guidance to do anything else – and I have never received any negative feedback from the administration of how I handled these situations.

Thus, the time of the recommendations suggests that the university may have issued the new protocol because the current question involves Immigration enforcement specifically and compliance with directives from Trump administration more broadly.

In order to be ready makes my university’s guidance not Ask the Faculty to Trying or Resisting ICE agents. However, it seems to be designed to delay their access to certain spaces within the university and to complicate the identification of a particular person that agents can seek.

For example, my university is now advising me that as a faculty member I have to request an order before allowing access to “limited access” and “limited access” space on our public campus. Absent an order I am advisable that I should ask to identify information from that officer, and then “(i) nform the officer that (I am) do not hinder their process but need to contact the UHD Police Department.”

(Related: University of Florida E -Mail advertises scholarships to illegal aliens)

Furthermore, I am advised to refuse to confirm whether a given student is in my class. The document determines that “(a) said UHD employee. . . (I) shall maintain the confidentiality of personal and personally identifiable information, including student items. “It continues:“ Federal officers typical Has no greater access to university registrations than any member of the public unless they present a valid subpoena ”(italicin mine). The word typical Recognizes there is Situations where greater access is justified, but I am not a lawyer and these situations are not described. If professors are expected to be a front line of defense in these interactions, greater clarification of our legal responsibilities is in order.

The guidelines for non-misconduct are supported by reference to the law on family education and privacy (Ferpa) and “Hippa” (which I take to be an abuse of the abbreviation for the Lords and Accountability Act for Health Insurance and Responsibility (HIPAA)). These reasons also justify further explanation of the faculty and staff.

Prolonged precedent claims that illegal foreigners get some rights set in our constitution. But are non-citizens who are in the country illegal (and thus not subject to the full legal jurisdiction of the United States) are the rights set in Ferpa and HIPAA? Even if they are, the question of whether these rights are sufficient to shield individuals against federal law enforcement efforts on a public university campus is another question.

UHD’s documents claim that the “principles” that lie on their recommendations are designed to “ensure legal compliance while protecting the rights and privacy, faculty, staff and administrators.” But wherever you stand on the issue of enforcement of immigration, these guidelines – which are neither “legal advice” nor official university policy – faculty and staff in a very difficult position.

It is true that my students’ immigration status is none of my business. But neither are their legal issues. If universities expect their employees to intervene in federal law enforcement activities, they owe them an official policy that protects their actions when they meet expectations of campus administrators. Otherwise, a full legal justification for their “advice” is the least they can do.