What explains the remarkable contrast between the protection, support, and coddling of illegal alien students, and the vicious persecution of students under the Obama Title IX letters of instruction? In the case of the illegal aliens, universities have flouted federal law; in the Title IX case, universities have taken up prosecution with a vengeance. How can we understand this?
People who enter the United States without legal permission, often crossing borders clandestinely, are officially designated “illegal aliens” or “inadmissible aliens,” although the Internal Revenue Service prefers “undocumented aliens.” People who have entered the country illegally are subject to deportation.
A large majority of American citizens, 76 percent, do not favor legal rights or government benefits for illegal undocumented immigrants. Only 15 percent believe that illegal aliens should be granted rights and benefits. In fact, 67 percent of all likely U.S. voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47 percent saying it is a very serious problem; only 32 percent think it is not a serious problem and 8 percent say it is not at all serious. A majority of likely voters, 62 percent, think that people who overstay their visas should be apprehended by the government and deported, while only 21 percent disagree. Finally, while a 25 percent minority of American voters wish to disband the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE), the majority, 55 percent, are opposed, with 20 percent undecided.
Contradicting the views of the American public are the views of college and university students, professors, and administrators, who have rushed to make “illegal alien,” or, as they prefer it, “undocumented student,” a protected and cherished status. The problem, as these self-appointed guardians see it, is enforcement of American immigration law, and the agencies, such as ICE, that are responsible for enforcement, which is somehow “unfair” to illegal immigrants. Thus, university students, professors, and administrators have taken it upon themselves to thwart enforcement of the law by not disclosing citizen status, and by obstructing ICE from carrying out its legal duties. Dozens of U.S. universities have declared themselves “sanctuaries,” committed to protecting illegal aliens. For example, Columbia University Provost John H. Coatsworth said:
The University will neither allow immigration officials on our campuses without a warrant, nor share information on the immigration status of students with those officials unless required by subpoena or court order, or authorized by a student. Moreover, New York City continues to be a sanctuary city, with special protections for undocumented immigrants, and Mayor de Blasio recently affirmed that local law enforcement officials will continue to operate consistent with that commitment.
If the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is terminated or substantially curtailed and students with DACA status lose the right to work, the University pledges to expand the financial aid and other support we make available to undocumented students, regardless of their immigration status.
At Wesleyan University, more than 1,000 students signed a petition asking President Michael S. Roth to make Wesleyan a sanctuary campus. Roth enthusiastically complied:
Having spoken with students, faculty and staff over the last week, and having conferred with the Board of Trustees, I think it is very important to declare that Wesleyan University is a sanctuary campus. For us, this means the following: Wesleyan will remain committed to the principles of non-discrimination, including equal protection under the law, regardless of national origin or citizenship. Wesleyan will not voluntarily assist in any efforts by the federal government to deport our students, faculty or staff solely because of their citizenship status.
As we say in our web pages, we will continue to ‘welcome all undergraduate applicants regardless of citizenship status. Undocumented students, with or without Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), who apply to Wesleyan will continue to be treated identically to any other U.S. citizen or permanent resident in their high school. Through our alumni networks, we are also putting together legal resources for members of the Wesleyan community with questions concerning their immigration status. We will facilitate connections to these resources and other support services, as we work with appropriate offices and constituency groups on campus.
Ditto at Portland State University, Oregon State University, Reed College, and the twenty-seven campuses of the California State University system, and others as well. According to Wikipedia, 200,000 to 225,000 college and university students are undocumented, with 49 percent of illegal aliens of college age attending an institution of higher learning.
Sanctuary universities are committed to granting illegal aliens the same rights as American citizens, but also offering special rights. If they have problems with immigration officials, the universities will offer them legal services. If they do not have work permits, the universities will offer them enhanced funding. The universities say that they base their policies on “the principle of non-discrimination,” which means that they do not discriminate between those who abide by the law and those who are law-breakers. The universities are committed to “equal protection under the law,” even for those who have broken the law and are subject to penalties, most notably deportation, for having done so. In short, the universities take the view that, by protecting and revering illegal aliens, they are holding to principles higher than the law. What are those principles?
In contrast to universities’ sanctuary policies that protect and cherish illegal aliens, are the policies that revile, vilify, and persecute students accused of rape. In almost all cases, it is male students accused of rape by female students. Accusations are assumed by universities to be true, and accusers are officially labeled “survivors,” under the unchallengeable commandment “believe women,” and the Obama Title IX instructions that required relentless prosecution and conviction.
All normal legal protections in common law were and are suspended; there is no assumption of innocence, and no due process: defendants are not notified of the charges against them, are not allowed to bring lawyers to defend them, are not allowed to present evidence in their defense, are not allowed to confront their accusers or cross-examine them, are in many universities judged by single “diversity and inclusion” officers according to the weakest criteria of judgement (mainly who the diversity officer believes), far weaker than preponderance of evidence or beyond a shadow of doubt. These persecutions take place in an atmosphere of hysteria generated by fallacious claims about rape culture and a rape epidemic. As a result, there have been numerous administrative lynchings of the accused in the U.S. and Canada.
The situation changes when convicted defendants take their cases out of the universities to real courts, where frequently the universities are castigated severely by judges for shoddy procedure and violation of due process, and universities are ordered to make large payments in settlement.
For most “survivor” false accusers, there is no penalty. Males are open targets, at no risk to the accusers, who are invariably treated as abused victims, and coddled by peers and the administration. Why do universities side with female students and persecute male students, rather than pursuing fair procedures and seeking a just verdict via the assumption of innocence and due process?
The disparate treatment of illegal alien students and accused male students in universities can be understood by the intersectional values of “social justice” ideology, which has been adopted by almost all universities as the sole framework for thought and action. Social justice ideology divides all people, including students, professor, and administrators, into racial, gender, sexuality, ethnic, and economic categories, identifying those allegedly with power as evil oppressors, and those allegedly without power as blameless victims of the powerful.
In the victimhood sweepstakes, those with more intersectional points for being victims in multiple categories are deemed the most worthy of special protection and benefits. Illegal immigrants score high, being people of color, poor, and from the global south. They are deemed to be oppressed by people of white from the global north, who are regarded as rich and powerful. Accused males score low in the intersectional sweepstakes, having been portrayed for most of a century as being powerful and toxic oppressors of blameless female victims.
Universities, to be virtuous, to seek “social justice,” must side with victims: illegal aliens and females. Conversely, universities must do all they can to sideline the oppressive people of white and toxic males, evil people who have abused their power and deserve no consideration, care, or protection. Males, ipso facto, are guilty. Protecting illegal aliens and vilifying people of white helps to redress the global injustice, and favoring females and persecuting males advances feminist “equality,” in which females replace men in power and status. The seemingly contrary university behavior toward beloved illegal alien students and reviled accused male students is determined by “social justice” ideology.