Impact of the Trump Administration's Immigration Policy on University Faculty

In 2017, the Trump Administration issued two sets of executive orders, which called for building a wall along the US-Mexico border and aimed to deny federal funds to sanctuary cities that shielded undocumented immigrants from deportation (“EO1”), and limited travel to the US from six countries, and by all refugees not possessing either a visa or valid travel documents (the so-called “travel ban”) (“EO2”). This study, grounded in minority stress theory, examined the impact of these orders on faculty’s ability to conduct research, teach, program plan and plan for the future at a large University. The study also examined what supports faculty desired for themselves and students in order to grapple with orders’ political and policy implications.

A 22-question survey, approved as “exempt” by the IRB, was divided into four sections which asked respondents about: their knowledge of the executive orders; the impact of each order on their research, teaching, program planning and future plans; the importance and types of supports possibly needed for faculty and students to address the impact of the orders; and demographic questions inducing race/ethnicity, gender, faculty rank and campus assignment. Open ended questions were included after each section. Closed ended questions, consisting of multi-point Likert-type scales, were recoded into dichotomous indicators, and analyzed using crosstabs and Chi-Square tests and logistic regression modeling. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Respondents were overwhelmingly opposed to both sets of executive orders. Faculty of Color (“FOC”) indicated a greater impact on their academic duties compared to white faculty. For EO1, FOC, compared with white faculty, had 2.6 times the odds of reporting an impact on research, 1.9 times the odds of impact on teaching, 2.8 times the odds of impact on program planning, and 3.4 times the odds of impact on future planning. Female faculty compared to male faculty had 1.7 times the odds of impact on teaching. For EO2, female faculty, compared to male faculty had 1.7 times the odds of reporting an impact on teaching; and FOC, compared to white faculty had 2.1 times the odds of impact on program and future planning. Male FOC were significantly more impacted in their research, teaching, program planning and future plans than white males when considering both executive orders. Qualitative data revealed that faculty felt uncertainty and fear regarding the future and considered moving out of the U.S.

While there was interest from respondents in the university providing more morale boosting supports (administrators making public statements in opposition to the orders), interest in practical supports such as training, forums and additional information on policies was more strongly expressed by FOC (compared to white faculty) and female faculty (compared to male faculty).

External policies have considerable impact on decision making by faculty, particularly those who are more socially marginalized (such as FOC and women). Social work research such as this both identifies that impact and gives voice to faculty so that institutions can add necessary supports to enhance the functioning of the academic community amidst a challenging, politically charged context.