University of Washington faculty publicly debated whether distributing whistles to students to alert others about nearby ICE presence could harm some community members. A UW assistant professor argued that loud noises — like whistles — could “retraumatize individuals,” particularly Hispanic and immigrant students, citing concerns raised by some advocacy groups.
The comment came after campus activists handed out whistles aimed at signaling when ICE was nearby so students could avoid encounters with the federal agency. The professor shared those points via an email to the American Association of University Professors listserv, noting that “loud noises are not neutral” and might cause distress in students with past trauma.
Other faculty responded in support of broader debates about how to oppose ICE’s presence. One professor recommended refreshing knowledge of non-violent resistance tactics, while another defended activists’ motives, saying efforts aren’t perfect but come from a need to protect vulnerable communities. Critics in the faculty discussion framed ICE as a “highly volatile, militarized” force making communities unsafe.
The debate unfolds amid ongoing campus actions against ICE. Students and community members associated with the UW’s Students for a Democratic Society briefly occupied an administration building during a nationwide “ICE Out” day protest aimed at pressuring university leadership to sever ties with the agency and refuse to share information with federal immigration authorities.
Other universities have also seen protests related to ICE involvement. For example, student groups succeeded in getting ICE to withdraw from a law school event at Arizona State University, while at George Washington University law students petitioned to label ICE a “fascist organization,” though the school refused to remove ICE from its career fair schedule.
Critics argue such campus debates illustrate a growing polarization over immigration enforcement on college grounds, with some faculty framing tools like whistles as harmful and others portraying ICE as an aggressive presence. Conservative observers note that labeling ICE “militarized” or suggesting ordinary alert tools could retraumatize individuals downplays the ongoing crisis of illegal immigration and federal enforcement challenges.
