Berkeley’s “list of 160” is a cautionary tale in due process and academic freedom

Universities are not above the law. When a federal investigation lands, counsel will (and should) advise compliance. But how an institution complies matters. UC Berkeley’s decision to hand over a 160-name list of students, staff, and faculty to federal officials—without clear notice, specific allegations, or transparent process—sets a dangerous precedent for academic freedom and procedural fairness. 

Start with first principles. Campus speech—often messy, sometimes offensive—is typically protected unless it crosses well-defined lines (true threats, harassment as legally defined). Universities have internal Title VI/Title IX frameworks precisely to evaluate complaints case-by-case. A bulk disclosure of names—especially if subjects do not know what conduct is alleged—short-circuits those processes and invites guilt-by-association. That is why critics, including renowned scholars, reached for “McCarthy-era” analogies. You don’t need to agree with the rhetoric to see the risk: lists chill speech. The Guardian

Second, the immigration exposure is real. For international students and scholars, the line between campus discipline and immigration jeopardy is perilously thin. Federal databases talk to one another; visa adjudicators have wide discretion. In a week when UC-wide federal pressure and lawsuits dominated headlines, feeding an undifferentiated list of names into a politicized pipeline looks cavalier at best. Berkeley knows this; its own community has produced leading work on how U.S. enforcement systems ingest and repurpose data. San Francisco Chronicle

Third, process optics matter. Past reporting praised Berkeley for releasing student records only when legally compelled. If this disclosure was indeed mandatory, the university should publish the legal instrument (subpoena, civil investigative demand, or explicit statutory order) and describe what it fought to narrow—categories redacted, standards applied, and why individual notice was limited. Absent that transparency, the episode reads as administrative over-compliance in the face of political heat. Inside Higher Ed

A better standard is available:

1. Narrowly tailor any response to a lawful, written demand—no voluntary “extra” metadata, no bulk lists when specific conduct records are requested.
2. Minimise personally identifiable information unless strictly required; provide aggregate or de-identified summaries first.
3. Notify affected individuals promptly (with exceptions only where a gag order exists), and offer counsel and appeal inside the university.
4. Publish a transparency report within days: name the legal basis, enumerate exactly what was sent, and document pushback or redactions.
5. Firewall immigration consequences to the extent legally possible; if federal investigators request names, require incident-specific predicates rather than sweeping rosters.

Berkeley is operating under extraordinary federal pressure; the UC system’s broader fight over autonomy and funding is real. But capitulating to list-making is not neutrality—it’s a choice that reshapes campus norms. The right to contest allegations before one’s name is handed to federal authorities is not a luxury; it’s the minimum that preserves scholarship and dissent.

If flagship public universities won’t defend those baselines, they won’t just chill protest—they’ll export fear into classrooms and labs, especially for the non-citizens who power American research. That’s a cost no investigation should casually impose.