From Jan. 23 to Jan. 25, the University of California (UC) Board of Regents met at the University of California, San Francisco. On the meeting agenda for the 25th, it was noted that the Regents would be voting on Regents Policy 4407: Policy on Equitable Student Employment Opportunities. At the end of Open Session, a motion was made to suspend implementation of the policy for one year, with ten regents voting in favor, six regents voting against, and one regent abstaining from the vote.
Regents Policy 4407: Policy on Equitable Student Employment Opportunities is outlined to provide “equitable access to quality higher education for all of its students regardless of immigration status.” As well as to provide UC students the “same opportunity to realize the benefits of University student employment.” This proposal would allow for undocumented students to be employed in UC campuses.
This policy was originally approved May 18, 2023, and within it stated that the Chair of the Board of Regents would assemble a working group, who would work with the President of the University to pursue the goal of “equal access to University employment opportunities.” This group would not authorize employment for undocumented students, but rather spend the time allotted considering the proposal. The deadline for this part of the process was declared to be Nov. 30, 2023.
The campaign to push Regents to create Regents Policy 4407 began in 2022. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Center for Immigration Law and Policy delivered an “Opportunity for All” Campaign Law Scholar Sign-On Letter on Sept. 7, 2022. This letter, which UCLA Law explains, is backed by “29 of the most respected immigration and constitutional law professors from around the country” provides reasoning for why undocumented students can be hired for positions within the UC system.
The core argument, as explained in their letter, claims that “The federal prohibition on hiring undocumented persons as a general matter is codified in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, or IRCA, in particular 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Under governing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, if a federal law does not mention the states explicitly, that federal law does not bind state government entities. Nothing in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a expressly binds or even mentions state government entities.”
This argument, which is explained throughout the UCLA Law letter, led to their conclusion that “IRCA likely does not bind the States, and that California State entities, including the University of California, are free under current law to hire undocumented people.”
On Nov. 16, 2023, prior to the Regents’ self-imposed deadline for considering and making progress on the proposal, a closed session was held by the Regents. This closed session involved a discussion of “Legal Issues Related to Equitable Student Employment Opportunities.” When the board met again later on in the day for the Health Services Committee, Board, Investments during open session, UC President Drake delivered a statement on the current status of the working groups. He claimed that the conversations that they held earlier showed how “complex and delicate the issue is” and after many discussions came to the conclusion that “it would be in everyone’s best interest to study the matter further.” The UC Regents would not speak about the proposal again until Jan. 2024.
So on Jan. 25, 2024, when Regent Chair Richard Leib opened the board meeting for public comment; over 190 speakers were prepared to speak about various policies and events. Out of all the speakers who signed up to speak, only a fraction had a chance to speak. Several UC students and faculty voiced their thoughts regarding Regents Policy 4407.
Dr. Erica Lubliner, double-board certified psychiatrist and Director of the UCLA Spanish-speaking Psychosocial Clinic spoke about the Opportunity for All (OFA) campaign, which influenced Regents Policy 4407. She explains how during her time in the medical workforce, she has “witnessed firsthand the need for greater diversity in the medical profession, [in particular] the need for Spanish-speaking mental health professionals. Some of the most engaged and promising medical students at the UC — the ones most capable of meeting that need — are undocumented.”
Karen Musalo, a law professor at the University of California College of Law in San Francisco, shared her support for the proposed policy. “I am very persuaded by the analysis of my colleagues at UCLA School of Law, that the federal prohibition on hiring undocumented [individuals] in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act does not bind states as their persuasive analysis details if federal law does not [mention] the states explicitly, it does not bind state government entities.”
UCLA student, Karen Arellano, spoke about her personal experience as an undocumented student in the UC. “I have fought for my education … and worked hard to be where I am today… I have been banned from access to these opportunities that you promised … I am asking for you all to remove these barriers. I am asking that you [allow] our applications to be considered. That’s all we’re asking for. This does not end with us.”
As Regent Chair Leib concluded public comment, people from the audience were heard exclaiming that 190 speakers within 30 minutes was not enough time.
After the Regents discussed during closed session, they returned and opened up the board meeting for the afternoon session. During this time, UC President Drake claimed that “the proposed legal pathway is not viable at this time, and in fact carries significant risk for the institution and for those we serve. For that reason, it is inadvisable for the University to initiate implementation right now.” Due to this significant risk, he maintains that passing Regents Policy 4407 may endanger students or their families, due to “the possibility of criminal prosecution, deportation, or anything that may force a change in their immigration status” or to human resources or legal professionals who may be subject to prosecution if “they knowingly participate in hiring practices deemed impermissible under federal law.” He also contends that it would be a [risk] to the UC institution because it “would be subject to civil fines, criminal penalties, or debarment from federal contracting,” if the UC is found to violate the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
After UC President Drake delivered his statement expressing concerns, UC Regent Ana J. Matosantos made a motion to suspend the policy for one year. UC Regent John A. Pérez then expressed his disappointment in open session. He believes that they “were taking a pause at a crucial moment on an issue that requires [their] commitment.” UC Regent Pérez expressed that he is not surprised by the outcome of their discussion. “We have gotten so focused on the question of what the law clearly says today, that we are losing sight of the moral imperative of what the law should be interpreted as being.”
Potential reasoning for the Regents’ decision may be tied to political pressure. The day before the Regents meeting, an article published by POLITICO reported that four unnamed university officials claimed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pressed them “to reconsider what it saw as a direct challenge to federal law during an election year.” Adding on, the article stated that DHS officials had contacted the university and informed them that “the Biden administration might be forced to sue or take administrative action” if the policy were approved.
Opposition was not only brought by DHS, but also by political entities within the state. Republican Congressman Darrell Issa from California, wrote to California Gov. Gavin Newsom on May 15, 2023 to express his opinion on the proposed policy, three days before the Regent’s meeting approved Regents Policy 4407. In the letter he states “I write to express opposition to consideration of plans to hire illegal immigrants by the University of California system.” According to POLITICO, the Communications Director at Congressman Issa’s office has had “several conversations with the University of California and its representatives” since that initial letter in order to urge the UC to not adopt the policy.
