SR#7, which had support from attending members of the public, was saved for a later date over concerns that not all stakeholders were consulted
By VINCE BASADA — campus@theaggie.org
The ASUCD Senate indefinitely tabled a resolution on Thursday, Feb. 13, affirming protections for undocumented students over concerns from ASUCD President Gaius IIupeju that not all relevant stakeholders had been consulted. Many members of the public who attended the meeting spoke in favor of the resolution, though some criticized its language.
Senate Resolution (SR) #7 aims “to serve as a direct response to the racist and xenophobic Trump administration.” It called on the university to “adopt and implement policies that designate the university as a sanctuary campus,” including but not limited to forbidding University of California police departments from complying with federal immigration agencies, guaranteeing privacy, supporting international scholars and staff, restricting the use of excessive force and expanding services for marginalized communities.
SR#7 also called on Davis City Mayor Bapu Vaitla and California Governor Gavin Newsom to reaffirm sanctuary status for the city and state, respectively. Davis was originally declared a City of Sanctuary in 1986; California became a sanctuary state in 2017.
The resolution was authored by Chely Saens, a legislative director for the ASUCD, and lists Senate Pro Tempore Dhilena Wickramasinghe as a co-author.
“This is not necessarily a call to action,” External Affairs Commission (EAC) Chair Henry Rosenbach said of the non-binding resolution. “It’s more of an embrace and a certainty that things are going to be all right even in times of uncertainty.”
ASUCD resolutions express, according to internal bylaws, “the views of the [ASUCD] membership” including “stances on city, county, state, and national political legislation and issues.” If passed, copies of SR#7 would have been sent to UC President Michael V. Drake, the UC Regents, UC Davis Chancellor Gary May, a cadre of other university officials, leaders of the city of Davis and the press.
Several members of the public additionally addressed the Senate in support of SR#7, noting the need for support from student officials.
“Everybody deserves the right [to] an education,” Maya Lopez, a first-year political science — public service major, said during the meeting’s open comment section. “A lot of students and faculty [are] of immigrant status and they just want a better life. We just need a better life.”
Luis Garcia, a second-year political science major and former ASUCD interim senator, echoed this point.
“No student should have to live in fear or uncertainty simply because of their immigration status,” Garcia said. “These students are our classmates, our friends and a crucial part of this community. I understand there might be some language in the resolution that some of you might not agree with, but don’t let that take away from the bigger picture.”
Not everyone at the meeting agreed with the merits of SR#7. Daniela Lurey, a fourth-year environmental policy and planning major, spoke against the legislation on behalf of the Davis College Republicans (DCR), of which she is the co-chair.
“The resolution is legally unenforceable, financially unsustainable and politically driven,” Lurey said. “[SR#7] conflicts with federal law, which risks UC Davis’ funding, and it demands policies that are beyond the authority of the university. It promotes selective law enforcement, which could create potential security risks and jeopardizes campus safety.”
Lurey and the DCR also took issue with the resolution’s description of the current presidential administration as “racist and xenophobic.”
Ilupeju and others pointed out that the requested protections for students conveyed in SR#7 are an extension of existing ASUCD practices and previously stated values.
That said, while Ilupeju agreed with the resolution’s sentiments and support of undocumented and international students, he provided criticisms for the bill in terms of research and discernment between actions ASUCD wanted to be done and those already in practice.
“The language [in SR#7] says that ASUCD calls ‘on [UC Davis] to adopt and implement policies that designate the university as a sanctuary campus,’” Ilupeju said. “It doesn’t say ‘protect and make new policies.’ It says ‘adopt and implement.’ If this hadn’t been pointed out, we were about to send it to the entire campus community saying that we didn’t believe that they had adopted or implemented those policies.”
Ilupeju provided an additional comment.
“I would just implore you all to be a little bit more thorough,” Ilupeju said.
Rosenbach later provided a response to these comments.
“We’re really scared and [university leadership] hasn’t done anything out in the open, and we’re [having] to beg for information, especially for services for international students,” Rosenbach said. “This went through my commission and my commissioners, and a lot of them are non-U.S. citizens, including myself. I apologize for the language. In our understanding, it was not as damaging as it appears to be, especially given that this is a personal stance for a lot of [us].”
Ilupeju also expressed concerns that by passing too many resolutions, the Senate was devaluing them to possible recipients. He also said that he felt that the table did not properly communicate with the resolution’s intended audience before SR#7 was drafted.
“There’s a reason why ASUCD resolutions aren’t given much weight,” Ilupeju said. “[It’s] because we pass them all the time without having conversations with [university leaders]. When we’re appealing to them to do something and we haven’t done the due diligence of [talking] with them, what does that say about the conversation we’re trying to have with them after we pass this?”
He instead proposed writing a letter to university officials or making some other public statement, rather than communicating their viewpoint through legislation.
Some provided a different opinion on the matter, including Senator Siddharth Jasthi.
“If you know people in admin are working on these things and making progress towards them, then it does fall on them for not publicizing it and not communicating it to the Senate,” Jasthi said.
While Ilupeju acknowledged that there had been a failure in the line of communication between UC leadership and the student government on the matter (something he said he had been pressing administration on), he and Internal Vice President Aaminah Mohammad reiterated that work was indeed being done for affected student groups.
“What our [UC] administration is doing right now is to our satisfaction,” Ilupeju said. “What I’ve constantly criticized them on is the messaging, but I don’t doubt for a moment that they’re doing everything they could, because they’re sharing these things with me. I’m sorry that we hadn’t had this conversation earlier.”
He also said that UC officials had met with him and other student leaders in private to discuss plans to support students at risk, though he added he was not at liberty to disclose any specific initiatives to the general public at that time.
Ultimately, SR#7 was tabled without objection for further discussion and deliberation.
Before adjourning, Ilupeju gave members of the public and the table an opportunity to address their concerns to the table.
Lurey pointed out the need for the entire UC Davis community to feel supported by the ASUCD.
“That means regardless of their opinions, regardless of who they voted for, their race, their sex, their gender, their sexuality, all of those things,” Lurey said. “Not just the quote, unquote ‘marginalized community or communities,’ but everybody.”
Senator Mia Cohen, who had signaled opposition to SR#7, likewise expressed her belief that the table, while outwardly open to all, did not properly conduct themselves when presented with opposing viewpoints.
“Yeah, everyone’s welcome, but sometimes we don’t always feel welcome,” Cohen said. “I mean at almost every meeting [and] almost every time I’ve spoken, it feels like people are snickering. Sure, we don’t agree on probably a lot of things, but I’ve always treated everyone here with respect, and I expect that from all of you.”
Another student, Ximena Hernandez Ayala, a fourth-year economics major, acknowledged these concerns while also pointing out that the backgrounds of some students necessitate different needs.
“I do think it’s important to acknowledge that while everybody should be treated the same, some people go through certain difficulties that are not the same, so they should be treated not differently, but supported accordingly,” Hernandez Ayala said.
Another speaker, who asked to remain anonymous, criticized the lack and difficulty of accessing legal resources and expressed frustration for the both-sides narrative that they had observed.
“If [the situation] doesn’t affect you personally, [if] it doesn’t change your life, it doesn’t take your parent away, and it’s a basic human right, then why is it bothering you?” the speaker said. “It’s like if I get shot in the foot and they’re like, ‘But my foot matters too.’ Your foot’s not shot. So having that understanding for the student body is really important to me.”
In total, the resolution was discussed by members of the public and the Senate table for around 80 minutes, with an additional 35 minutes of further conversation on the concerns of students before the meeting was adjourned.
While it is unclear if/when a similar resolution will be introduced, Iluepju did indicate that the topic may be revisited after Feb. 26, following his meeting with Drake and depending on what action is taken at that time.
Other Senate updates:
At the Feb. 13 meeting, the Senate also bestowed three students with the Mark and Linda Champagne Award, recognizing outstanding employees of the ASUCD. The recipients are: Benjamin Bartel, a third-year economics major and Unitrans route supervisor, Ulysses Trejo-Vasquez, fifth-year political science and economics double major and Unitrans driver, and Rishita Dwivedi, a third-year economics major and Picnic Day vice-chair.
The Senate also confirmed John Carraher, a fourth-year computer science and engineering major, as the new unit director of the Innovation and Research Lab (IRL), ASUCD’s in-house research and software development group.
Later that evening, they heard quarterly reports from the IRL, the Coffee House (who reported on plans to restart Saturday service this spring) and the Gender and Sexuality Commission.
In legislative matters, Senate Bill (SB) #51, restructuring the order of quarterly reports presented to the Senate, passed unanimously. SB#52, which sought to add an IRL survey to the student election ballot, was returned to commission for further review.
The meeting began at 6.13 p.m. and adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Written by: Vince Basada — campus@theaggie.org
