During the past several weeks, momentum has picked up on Grounds in support of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act - or DREAM Act. The Latino Student Alliance in particular has sought out support from Student Council and the University to encourage Congress to pass the legislation, which would allow more children of undocumented immigrants to attend college in the United States.
The cause advanced by the DREAM Act is commendable, and LSA has done the University community a service by drawing more attention to the bill. Specifically, the act would give children of undocumented immigrants the opportunity to obtain conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the U.S. military or two years at a four-year higher education institution. Individuals also would need to have entered the United States before age 16, have lived in the country for five consecutive years, have graduated from a U.S. high school, be within the 12-35 year age range at the time of the bill's enactment and be of good moral character. The students in question would be given temporary residency for six years to complete the education or military requirements needed to be considered for permanent residency.
But the substance of the DREAM Act is only one piece of the debate that must occur on Grounds - if LSA wishes for the University to endorse the legislation officially, another conversation must be had about the appropriate role for the University to take in political issues.
With a number of LSA members present, Student Council approved a resolution Tuesday night encouraging the University to issue a public statement in support of the DREAM Act. When it comes to representing student interests, Council receives high marks for this issue: Most students seem to support the bill, or at least there appears to have been little if any organized resistance to the measure. One of Council's functions is to act as a liaison between students and administrators, so its support of the resolution was a conscientious move.
Still, the process by which representatives discussed and passed the resolution was flawed. Most of the shortcomings arose from the nature of the debate itself. While some Council members brought up concerns about provisions of the act - and questioned why it has been in a state of political limbo in Congress for nearly a decade - any discussion of the DREAM Act's weaknesses left much to be desired. Even if the reasons for the legislation stalling on Capitol Hill have been entirely related to partisan gridlock, that alone signals that the would-be law has encountered some controversy. The arguments made in favor of the act seem stronger than any of the opposition's complaints, but that does not mean Council should have avoided more substantive debate. Instead, it seemed that the desire to pass a resolution quickly outweighed all other concerns. If Council and LSA expect the University to take a public stance on a politically charged issue, the organizations must be willing to engage the bill's detractors and not brush aside their criticisms.
Perhaps of greater concern is that Council did not explore earnestly what role the University's administration ought to play in taking sides on what is - rightly or wrongly - a divisive issue. Institutions of higher education function best when they strive to be nonpartisan, and college officials cannot overlook the problems that arise when some of their stakeholders become alienated by an institution's politics. "The University seldom is involved in the endorsement of pending or proposed legislation," said Sandy Gilliam, former secretary to the Board of Visitors. Gilliam also cited legal concerns with such decisions. "If a formal reaction is called for, it really has to be a legal requirement imposed in something passed by a legislative body," he said.
To be clear, none of these criticisms precludes the University's Board of Visitors from taking a principled stand to support the DREAM Act. Many alumni may recall former University President Edgar F. Shannon's speech to students from the steps of the Rotunda, in which he condemned the Nixon administration's decision to invade Cambodia. The move nearly cost Shannon his job - and it also staved off violence amid fierce student protest and allowed the University to remain open while most of its peer institutions shut down.
The lesson here is that passivity is not always the University's best recourse - neither is ignoring a spirited appeal from its students. But students have not yet entertained the kinds of questions Board members and President Teresa A. Sullivan must consider before moving forward with such an endorsement. Even in the face of morally challenging circumstances, sometimes an institutional opinion can do more harm than good. There is no way to determine if this is one of those times without more candid discussion from student leaders and representatives.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
