Tag Archives: harvey mudd college

DACA On College Campuses

Just under five years ago, on the thirtieth anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, then-president Barack Obama put forth an executive order that created the immigration policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In higher education, this policy has conferred many benefits upon certain undocumented residents of the U.S., including limited protection from immigration officers and access to public and private financial aid packages.

DACA grants immigrants a two-year grace period during which they are treated as temporary residents and are eligible for work permits. The policy is only available to those who (a) came into the United States before their sixteenth birthday before June 2007; (b) are currently in school, are a high school graduate, or have been honorably discharged from the military; (c) were born after June 15, 1981; and (d) are not a threat to American security.

Those granted DACA status have no path to citizenship, yet they still can receive a number of benefits normally exclusive to legal permanent residents of the U.S. These benefits include being able to obtain a driver’s license in all fifty states, having an ‘exempt non-citizen’ status that absolves them from the fines for not having insurance under the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, being granted special tax refunds and credits, and being able to obtain temporary social security numbers.

The benefits of DACA for its grantees, however, go far beyond these basics and extend deeply into the American higher education system. In twenty states, DACA immigrants are allowed to register for public community colleges, colleges, and universities with an in-state resident status, which halves their tuition costs in many circumstances. In six states, they qualify for state-funded financial aid packages for public colleges and universities. On top of any state-sponsored financial aid packages for which DACA grantees qualify, there are many private scholarships and grants available. States like Utah offer private funding through public universities to their DACA students.

Some private colleges such as Amherst College and Columbia University offer the same need-blind admission policy to both domestic and non-citizen applicants alike. Others, such as Pomona College, a member of the Claremont Consortium, go further and do not differentiate between documented and undocumented applicants for either admissions or financial aid. Pitzer College and Scripps College, also members of the Claremont Consortium, each offer full, renewable grants for one undocumented first-year student per year. Scripps also recently announced they will follow Pomona’s example and will begin extending need-based financial aid to all undocumented students, regardless of their DACA status, next fall. Meanwhile, at the other Claremont Colleges, Claremont McKenna College and Harvey Mudd College, undocumented students must apply for external scholarships such as the Cal Grant if they require financial assistance, though at Harvey Mudd, they are encouraged to apply for international student financial aid.

Once DACA students have graduated from their respective undergraduate institutions, state law determines the opportunities available to them. In California, for instance, DACA students may acquire licenses to practice law, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy; can study abroad; and, for the University of California postgraduate programs, they are eligible for all financial aid, grants, and fellowships applicable to U.S. citizens.

Nonetheless, even with all of the benefits of the DACA program, DACA students still fear that their information might be passed along to federal immigration officers. While all DACA immigrants’ information has been shared with the Department of Homeland Security, ICE may not access this information at this time. Many DACA students fear that this could change under President Trump. In response to these anxieties, DACA students and their allies have advocated that colleges become ‘sanctuary campuses.’ Like sanctuary cities, they would protect the local undocumented community from deportation and arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

Unfortunately for DACA students, neither of these sanctuary environments have any real legal force, as ICE can still conduct raids on a sanctuary campus. The most that these sanctuary communities and immigration activists can do is to refuse to share information with ICE, to hand over undocumented immigrants, or to coordinate with local police as they attempt to assist ICE. Given that ICE only has around five thousand agents, help from local police departments is necessary for successful ICE operations.

Even within the five-college Claremont Consortium, the magnitude of each school’s efforts greatly differ. Pomona’s president David W. Oxtoby acknowledges that calling the college a ‘sanctuary campus’ is not entirely accurate as Pomona cannot offer either literal sanctuary or legal authority in protecting its students; yet, of the five colleges—arguably of virtually all liberal arts colleges—Pomona offers the greatest amount of aid and support to its estimated fifty to sixty undocumented students. Pitzer and Scripps, on the other hand, have declared themselves to be sanctuary colleges, but the services designated for their undocumented students are much more limited than those of Pomona. Harvey Mudd and Claremont McKenna put even less resources toward supporting their undocumented students, have not changed their nondiscrimination policies to the extent which Scripps and Pomona have, and neither institution has come forward offering to help these students find legal aid if needed.

Colleges have been eager to throw public support behind their undocumented students, as evidenced by strong support for DACA among college presidents. All five presidents of Claremont’s undergraduate institutions, along with the presidents of 634 other institutions, signed a letter put forth by President Oxtoby that DACA should not only be sustained, but should also be expanded. Calling DACA’s expansion a “moral imperative” and a “national necessity,” President Oxtoby goes on to state that undocumented students “represent what is best about America.”

Not all college administrators, even those who signed it, are completely on board with the progressive sentiments President Oxtoby expresses in the letter. Claremont McKenna’s president Hiram Chodosh wrote to the CMC community, “I believe that the Statement’s specific advocacy for DACA may … compromise non-partisan values vital to higher education.” All five schools, however, including Claremont McKenna, have promised to offer counseling resources to their undocumented students and to require that Claremont College Campus Security officers not ask students to disclose their citizenship status.

Don’t Offend Me: PC Culture at HMC

Harvey Mudd College hosted local, Los Angeles-based comedian Allan Cunningham Feb. 4 for the weekly Wednesday Nighter. The Wednesday Nighter is meant to be a break from the perpetual study grind that consumes most Mudders. Past events have included DUCK improv comedy shows, the 5C ballroom dance team, and a number of student talent showcases. On this particular Wednesday night the crowd was much larger than usual, and everyone had come out expecting to get a good laugh. Unfortunately, the night of comedy did not go as planned.

The comedian was clearly struggling to get started, opening the show by just talking to the audience for a little bit and making a joke about how ugly the curtains in Platt were. After bumbling for a few more minutes, he announced to the crowd that he was having trouble transitioning into a set because the college had asked him to keep his act clean. He then proceeded into the set of jokes that he had prepared for the night. After around 15 minutes, a student who was offended by some of the material interrupted him. The comedian then got into an argument with this student and, subsequently, was asked to leave by a proctor.

Afterward, the student body received an email from members of the DOS staff apologizing for exposing the students present at the Wednesday Nighter to the “upsetting and offensive” ideas in the act. Dorm proctors also sent out emails to encourage those who found the jokes offensive to come talk to them and to reassure their dorm mates that these ideas have no place at Harvey Mudd College.

The incident as a whole sparked a discussion across campus about whether Mudd should be sheltering its students from ideas that may be offensive to certain groups. As time went on, the discussion developed into the wider question of whether or not Mudd, and the rest of the Claremont Colleges, should be sheltering students from ideas that might be offensive.

The reality is that these offensive ideas do exist, and there is a high probability that all of the students at the Claremont Colleges will run into them at some point during their lives and professional careers. College is a place where students are supposed to expose themselves to as many different ideas as possible so that they can create their own set of beliefs, not just inherit that of their parents. When colleges regulate the viewpoints that are allowed on campus, they begin to mold beliefs for their students, rather than allowing each individual to form their own. Some might argue that everyone having the same belief set is a good thing, but, to me, that sounds like the foundation of an Orwellian society. So, while I do not believe that the colleges should be seeking out and intentionally exposing their students to offensive ideas, they should not shelter students from these beliefs either.

The idea that “offensive” beliefs are not welcome on campus is a troubling notion when it relates to free speech. The fact that each of the Claremont Colleges promotes diversity within their campuses means that admitted students will inevitably bring with them a wide variety of upbringings and core values that might be offensive to other students. This is just a fact of life, regardless of what side of the political spectrum one sits on; we cannot all agree on everything. So, if “offensive” ideas are not allowed on the campuses, what are we to do about beliefs that might offend other students? Even the most progressive of student have beliefs that others students, particularly those on the other end of the political spectrum, will find offensive. The worrying thing is that, with the kind of thinking presented in the emails Mudd students received after this incident, it seems as if the PC culture on campus is trying to prevent any ideas that might be offensive to other students from being brought up. Is a PC culture this strict worth limiting free speech on campus?

I can only guess that, after this debacle, it will be a substantial amount of time before Mudd brings another professional comedian to its campus. In the meantime, we should ask ourselves if being sheltered from outside ideas is actually the best thing for our development into life after university.