Clemson just announced that they will be bringing in Nikki Haley and Tim Scott as the commencement speakers this year. While there is certainly nothing wrong with having politicians or public officials speak at graduation, the one-sided political nature of it is quite striking. Some could even say it is a veiled political statement. While Clemson has no problem with this type of political stance, they have refused to make any type of political statement on behalf of DACA recipients (Dreamers) in the state of South Carolina who want to pursue higher education.
This past legislative session in South Carolina, Republican representative Neal Collins of Easley introduced a bill that would have allowed Dreamers to receive in-state tuition and qualify for state scholarships. It would have also permitted them to receive licensure in areas such as teaching or nursing. In response to this propose legislation, the Greenville County School Board passed a resolution calling for state licensure for Dreamers. A petition was then started to ask Clemson to make a statement in favor of the bill given how this legislation would directly affect the university and help Dreamers study at institutions like Clemson. Approximately 200 signatures were gathered and presented to the university, but the administration refused to make any type of political statement.
Their stated reason was that Clemson does not make political statements. However, this is not completely true. When it comes to issues of state funding there is no hesitancy in making public statements, but if it is about helping immigrant students study at institutions like Clemson that seems to be a bridge too far. Clemson is letting down some of the most driven and talented students in this state and refusing to serve in their needed role as leaders in the state of South Carolina. There are certainly a lot of things that Clemson does well. We are expanding our research and becoming a top-tier university, but we are failing in our moral role in the state. Clemson claims to want to enhance diversity, but remains unwilling to follow that goal with a real stance in favor of said diversity.
Making a stand for Dreamers should have been an easy move for Clemson to make. The overwhelming majority of the country supports Dreamers. The legislation was bi-partisan in nature. Furthermore, this legislation would have been beneficial to Clemson by both expanding its diversity and bringing in high-quality students that are currently shut out of the system. The Clemson Forward Plan itself claims to aim for a “global vision” and to attract “a capable, dedicated and diverse student body” (p. 3). How are we to understand the word “diversity” when it is used by our university officials, if they do not take the steps to defend it? No one is expecting Clemson to make a political statement on every bill that comes up in Columbia, but this legislation would have directly impacted the university in a positive manner. By remaining silent, Clemson is making a strong political statement. The statement that they are making is that they are fine with the status quo even if that means that many students in the state are being left behind.