The recent toolkit produced by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and several other groups has sparked intense debate and concern. This toolkit, titled 'Schools Drop ICE', encourages students to take a stand against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by creating a crisis at their universities. The strategy outlined in the toolkit is bold and direct, urging students to engage in escalating campaigns centered around winnable demands. These demands include targeting companies that contract with ICE, such as Enterprise, Target, Hilton, Flock, and ICE Air Carriers, with the aim of pressuring these companies to cut ties with ICE. The toolkit's approach is a call to action, emphasizing the importance of majoritarian outreach and non-violent direct action to create a crisis for university administration. This strategy has already seen some success, as evidenced by the suspension of students at a Virginia school following an anti-ICE walkout, and the removal of Hilton branding from a Minnesota hotel after a video surfaced showing the location repeatedly denying immigration officers service. The toolkit's targets are carefully chosen to maximize impact. For instance, the suggestion to target charter flight companies like Eastern, GlobalX, and Omni Air highlights the connection between athletic teams and deportation flights, raising ethical questions. Similarly, the focus on Flock cameras, Enterprise car rentals, Hilton Hotels, and Target Corp. underscores the pervasive role of these companies in ICE operations. The toolkit's message is clear: ICE's operations rely on the cooperation of key institutions, and by targeting these institutions, students can create a public relations crisis that forces universities to cut ties with ICE contractors. However, the toolkit's approach has also faced criticism. A spokesperson for Flock Safety, for example, argued that the toolkit contains misinformation, as Flock has no relationship with ICE. This highlights the need for thorough research and accurate information in such campaigns. The toolkit's emphasis on non-violent activism is a positive aspect, but it also raises questions about the effectiveness of such tactics in the face of increasing death threats and assaults against immigration agents. The toolkit's ultimate goal is to ensure campus safety for all students, faculty, and staff, regardless of immigration status. However, the strategy's potential to create a crisis and pressure universities to act raises concerns about the balance between activism and potential disruption. As the debate continues, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of such campaigns and their impact on the complex relationship between immigration enforcement and academic institutions.
