From silence to condemnation: Institutional responses to “travel ban” Executive Order 13769

Abstract

and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days. It also attempted to halt all refugees from entering the US for 120 days and indefinitely bar entry for Syrian refugees. This controversial order resulted in confusion and ambiguity for many, as law enforcement personnel responded by preventing individuals at airports from entering the country, even if they already had been approved for entry and had the correct documentation (Lussenhop, 2017). Eventually the confusion and frustration were alleviated and people who had been detained were allowed entry into the U.S., but it sparked a larger national conversation. The focus and intent of the EO was consistent with campaign promises President Trump made during the presidential campaign. Despite a stated purpose of the EO to promote greater security for the nation, it incited anger among a large number of U.S. allies and a wide array of organizations, including academic institutions, airlines, and tech companies (Wall, 2017). The EO was criticized as being discriminatory, and many parts of it were deemed unconstitutional by a federal court. Within 24 hours of the EO being signed, it was blocked by a judge in New York and by another in Massachusetts (Almasy & Simon, 2017). By mid-February the EO had been struck down by a federal court (Devlin & Kendall, 2017). The administration's appeal to have the stay on the EO was also denied by the Ninth Circuit Federal court of appeals (Devlin & Kendall, 2017). A second version of the EO was FROM SILENCE TO CONDEMNATION 2 signed by the president on March 6, and was immediately blocked once again by multiple federal judges (Almasy & Simon, 2017). On June 26, following a lengthy appeal process, the Supreme Court decided to allow some parts of the second EO to go into effect by the end of June (McGraw, Kelsey, & Keneally, 2017). One of the contexts most directly affected by the EO was higher education. International students and faculty make up a large percentage of campus communities. According to the Institute of International Education's Open Doors project (2016), in the 2015-2016 academic year over a million international students studied at U.S. institutions. The EO had the potential to limit the ability of international students and faculty to cross freely in and out of the U.S. and also hamper the capacity of U.S. based academics to build programs and relationships across borders. Just over 17,000 students were from the nations included in the EO (Open Doors, 2016). While this is a relatively small percentage of the total international student population in the U.S., the EO created anxiety for many international students and faculty. Colleges and universities have a responsibility to communicate with their stakeholders about this type of event. They must listen to the concerns of their stakeholders, and respond by providing resources for those affected. That said, academic

Prioritizing public interest in public relations: Public interest relations

“…Practitioners should not only allow such debate, but they should also encourage it. Pyle et al (2018) succinctly state, a democratic society needs debate and disagreement, adding, ‘It is through respectful dialogue that we challenge each other to grow and be stronger’ (p.222). Similarly, Moglen et al (2017) remind us arguments don’t have to be about conflict, taking sides, picking opponents, overpowering the opposition, or even winning.…”

Communicating science in organizational contexts: toward an “organizational turn” in science communication research

“…Only six out of the 185 sampled journal articles (3.2%) mention scientific organizations or science-related issues. All six focus on institutions of higher education, namely universities, analyzing topics such as their public JCOM 24,3 relations strategies in response to political events (Pyle et al, 2018) or their use of social media (e.g. Linvill et al, 2012;Sanderson et al, 2016).…”

Stakeholder collaboration to build peace through public interest relations (PIR) (Study on the commemoration of Suran Agung conflict in Madiun)

“…Public interest requires people to take part in larger discussions that affect society, listening to a variety of perspectives can encourage making a contribution (Moglen et al, 2017) because in a democracy everyone has the right to speak out and try to persuade each other so it can help innovative thinking in organizational decision making (Toledano, 2016). Through respectful dialogue we grow and become stronger (Pyle et al, 2018).…”