The Dissenting Campus in a Sanctuary City (Part 2)

In my last blog post, I discussed the concept of sanctuary cities and the distinction between the sanctuary status of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan's campus. As I had explained, despite the city of Ann Arbor's elected choice to maintain Sanctuary status since 2003, the University of Michigan’s campus- which is contained within Ann arbor's city limits- follows federal and state guidelines when it comes to complying with ICE officers. Recently, the University's CSG struck down a resolution, that would have called for CSG to "urge President Schlissel and the Regents to issue a public declaration in support of the Sanctuary cities of Detroit and Ann Arbor.” I've argued that this vote, and the resulting failure to comply to Ann Arbor's sanctuary status, is an extremely significant manifestation of a failure in the democratic processes in the city, resulting in a democratic injustice. 

To fully grasp the importance of the student-run CSG's vote, it's important to understand the legislative structures of the two actors- the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan. The University's legislative body is comprised of two parts- the Board of Regents and the Central Student Government. The Board of Regents covers most of the legislative responsibilities of the University, but the Central Student Government still has the capacity to pass resolutions drawn up by students, student representatives, and student groups. The student representatives in CSG are each elected through a campus-wide general election. The city's legislative branch consists of the elected members of the city council who are voted for by Ann Arbor's citizens (a more detailed and comprehensive explanation of the city's electoral process can be found on Ann Arbor's city website). In this way, the student representatives and the city councilors are acting in the same capacity as representatives- but for different (if sometimes overlapping) groups of constituencies.

The Michigan Union, where the CSG meets for general assembly every week in their chambers.

The matter of representation plays an essential role in the reason why the integrity of Ann Arbor's sanctuary status is so important to the integrity of the democratic processes of the city. In a Republic (like the American representative democracy as it was extensively described in the Federalist papers) representatives elected into office can be seen as intended to be an expression of the voters' political voices. Representatives are the instruments through which the people express their political rights and interests. How representation is interpreted (particularly in this case) – as a political manifestation of a people's control over a government and a responsibility – frames Ann Arbor's sanctuary status as an integral expression of the citizens' choice. While the city's voters did not directly vote on the 2003 resolution that passed into law through the city council, they did vote for the elected officials who sit on the council and represent them, who voted to pass the resolution. For the citizens of Ann Arbor, the enforcement of the sanctuary status is a critical extension of their democratic right- to see their laws enacted and their political voices respected. 

When speaking about the importance of a resolution that would call for the University's CSG to support an integration the city, Kate Stenvig, BAMN's coordinator and a contributor to their resolution, said “the University needs to work on a program for immigrant and undocumented students.” She cited a protest from last year that resulted in several BAMN members being arrested, some of them being undocumented students. Stenvig explained that the manner in which the University pursued charges against the students, knowing their status and the consequences, “was the last straw- it really showed that the University is closing its doors to these students.”

Whether these actions by the University in 2014 are actually reflective of its general attitude towards undocumented students or not (a judgment I won't make from this example), they are in clear conflict with the municipal standards set by An Arbor's sanctuary status. In taking these actions, the University at the very least violated the integrity of the democratic choices of the Ann Arbor's citizens. Meanwhile, following these events, in turning down the resolution that BAMN introduced this fall, CSG seems to have unknowingly perpetuated this violation. 

The argument can be made that the members of CSG, in voting down the resolution, were acting in their own capacity as representatives. In voting down the resolution, the student representatives in CSG were considering the interests of the University's students rather than the city's residents and acting as representatives of the students that voted them into office. By claiming that the CSG (and by extension the University) were defending the democratic interests of their own voters, an argument can be made that if the citizens of Ann Arbor are facing an injustice, it is justified by the fact that the CSG isn't meant to take into consideration their interests. 

However, to make this argument, its necessary to rely on two assumptions: that the CSG accurately represents the interests of University students and that the interests of University students outweigh the interests of Ann Arbor's citizens (at least on the University's campus). In my next blog post I will discuss and evaluate these assumptions and explore possible solutions to the problems presented.