> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
The Review
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Teaching Immigration Law in the Age of Trump

By  Michael Kagan
January 8, 2017
<em>Teaching Immigration Law in the Age of Trump</em> 1
Eric Petersen for The Chronicle

At the end of this month, just about a week after Donald J. Trump becomes president, I will begin to teach my regular law-school course on immigration law at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. For the first time, I am apprehensive.

I am not at all afraid of teaching controversial topics. In previous jobs, I taught classes on the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at both Tel Aviv University and at the American University in Cairo. At UNLV, at least up to now, I have received generally high marks from students in response to the course-evaluation question about “respect for individual differences including gender, race, and ideology.”

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

At the end of this month, just about a week after Donald J. Trump becomes president, I will begin to teach my regular law-school course on immigration law at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. For the first time, I am apprehensive.

I am not at all afraid of teaching controversial topics. In previous jobs, I taught classes on the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at both Tel Aviv University and at the American University in Cairo. At UNLV, at least up to now, I have received generally high marks from students in response to the course-evaluation question about “respect for individual differences including gender, race, and ideology.”

But I fear this time will be different. Thanks to Trump, and the white nationalism he helped usher into mainstream American politics, there seems no longer to be any consensus about the boundaries of reasonable debate. And that will make teaching a subject like immigration law much harder.

At my own institution, I was one of nearly 1,000 people who signed a petition asking our university to declare itself a “sanctuary campus.” Campus protests erupted when a UNLV math instructor posted on Facebook that if he found out that one of his students was undocumented, “I would have to turn you into ICE :). No safe spaces in my classes :).” (He later said it was a joke.)

Meanwhile, pro-Trump students on college campuses are reportedly demanding “safe spaces” to shield them against ideological hostility from liberal students and faculty, and a conservative organization launched a Professor Watchlist to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda.”

ADVERTISEMENT

While I do not pretend to be neutral, it is my job to encourage open debate in class. Students who disagree with me deserve to feel free expressing themselves.

In Las Vegas, I teach immigration law at the literal frontline of America’s immigration wars. UNLV is among the top five most ethnically diverse college campuses in the country, and we have many students who are undocumented or beneficiaries of President Obama’s deferred-action programs. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that 7.2 percent of Nevada’s population was undocumented in 2014, more than either California or Texas.

Politically, we are a swing state. In 2016, Nevada voted for Hillary Clinton and elected the first Latina to serve in the United States Senate. But both votes were close. Two years ago, our state elected a conservative attorney general who promptly joined the lawsuit that blocked the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans programs (DACA and DAPA) that aimed to help so many families here.

I know that many of my colleagues in academe try to achieve the appearance of neutrality when they teach controversial subjects by hiding their personal opinions. I don’t try to do that. In part, I just don’t think I could pull it off. I don’t hide my opinions very well, and I know that any student who cares enough could look up my publications and find out what I think anyway.

I also wonder if aiming for neutrality in the classroom would be intellectually honest. I teach immigration because I am passionate about it, and I spend most of my working day thinking about it. It would be strange if I did not have strong views, especially now.

But while I do not pretend to be neutral, it is my job to encourage open debate in class. Students who disagree with me deserve to feel free expressing themselves. And if only pro-immigrant students speak up, it is my job to raise counterarguments in class.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet, integral to this approach is a sense of boundaries distinguishing reasonable debate from base prejudices and disrespect. For example: I support DACA and DAPA, but I am keenly aware that they do push the boundaries of executive power and that there are substantial arguments that they are not legal. I want students to feel free to voice these critiques, and if no student does so, I will do it. And if students from the left were to allege that DACA critics are inherently racist, I would need to set them straight.

But what if a student were to say that Mexican immigrants have a propensity to be criminals, or that people of Mexican descent cannot be fair-minded judges? Such comments are pure bigotry; they are prejudice without empirical foundation. Moreover, such comments could create a hostile learning environment for other students, especially if the instructor fails to reprimand them and re-establish boundaries.

The trouble, obviously, is that our incoming president has said exactly these things. Does that mean the boundaries have moved? Does it mean that alleging without evidence that Mexico is deliberately sending rapists to America is now an acceptable claim to make in a university classroom? I don’t think it does. And yet, suddenly, to call racism by its name seems like just another partisan attack on the president. I can see why a student might think, Shouldn’t I be able to say the same thing the president says without being reprimanded by my liberal professor?

These challenges are not new. If I had been teaching constitutional law in 1954 — the year of Brown v. Board of Education — would I have needed to treat arguments for white supremacy as within the bounds of reasonable debate? Just as segregation had substantial public support then, Donald Trump has significant support today. I teach at a public university in a state in which nearly 46 percent of voters supported him. Does this mean that I need to treat any support for Trump, or anything Trump says, as inherently acceptable? Or can I, as a faculty member, rely on my own independent moral analysis to set boundaries for my classroom?

I still think bigotry is bigotry, and I do not believe that these boundaries are subject to change by the president. But I can also see that the election of Donald Trump has made these boundaries far more contestable, and far more contested, than they once were. And I think we have to take Trump seriously as a political force and, starting this month, as a policy maker. Students must be able to debate what he says and does — including arguing in his favor — but that does not mean that everything he has said and done is acceptable in my classroom. And that is not an easy line to draw.

ADVERTISEMENT

Michael Kagan is a professor in the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.

A version of this article appeared in the January 13, 2017, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Opinion
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

  • What It’s Like to Be Named to a Watch List of ‘Anti-American’ Professors
  • For Undocumented Students, Trump Adds New Risk to Study Abroad
  • The Day After
  • Lesson Plans After the Shock: How Instructors Treated Trump’s Win in the Classroom
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin