President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy has been a point of controversy since its creation. This controversy carried over into the 2016 election, which ended in the election of Donald Trump. In alignment with his campaign promises, President Trump has attempted to roll back the DACA policy, though the courts have delayed his actions for the time being. This hold-up, however, has created great uncertainty for the hundreds of thousands of people covered by DACA, so the upcoming Supreme Court decision on DACA should help bring clarity to the situation.
As an institution of higher education, Asbury University will have to brace for a decision that could potentially affect the status of current and future students. This reality brings up the question of whether or not the administration should take a public position regarding DACA. Some of Asbury’s leaders may seek to come out publicly in favor of DACA; however, the university as a whole should avoid taking a public position on the issue.
Immigration has become a hot topic in American political discourse during recent years, and many Americans are divided on how to address the issue adequately. This division probably extends to students, faculty and staff at Asbury as well. Thus, university officials must be cautious about declaring an official position. If the institution takes a stance on DACA, then everyone connected with the university may be associated with that position. Students, faculty and staff who might disagree should not be put in such a position, especially when an issue does not confront Asbury’s core beliefs.
Furthermore, if Asbury were to take a particular position on the DACA issue, there is a risk that the administration might inadvertently label it as something that all Christians should do. This could create a dangerous sentiment that those who disagree with the “Asbury position” are not living up to their faith. Far too often, both sides of the political spectrum have weaponized the Bible and Christianity against the other side. Asbury should avoid contributing to an already hostile political environment, especially as it relates to the exploitation of Christian beliefs.
Finally, the Obama administration skipped over the proper constitutional process when creating DACA. Therefore, the program could (and should) be declared invalid. Judge Andrew Hanen, who heard the DACA case in a federal district court, agreed with this sentiment. In his ruling, Judge Hamen stated that “if the nation truly wants a DACA program, it is up to Congress to say so.” Since the DACA program is probably not valid under the Constitution, Asbury should not endorse such a policy, especially given the divisive nature of the topic.
There is no denying that the Supreme Court’s decision on the future of the DACA program could have an impact on Asburians. However, Asbury’s leaders must consider other things before jumping to a public statement on the topic. Considering the disagreements on the issue within the Asbury community, the potential weaponization of Christianity through an official position and the lack of constitutional backing for the program, Asbury should avoid making a public statement on the future of DACA.
