Harvard University have begun legal proceedings against the Trump administration, after being told the Department of Homeland Security would revoke their international students visas.
But then, late on Friday 23 May, a judge temporarily blocked Trump’s plan to revoke these visas. As BBC News reported:
US District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order in a short ruling issued on Friday.
The order pauses a move that the Department of Homeland Security made on Thursday to revoke Harvard’s access to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program – a government database that manages foreign students.
Trump: chaos at Harvard
On the 22 May, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirsti Noem uploaded a statement to social media:
This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.
As a result, Noem explained that:
They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law.
It is, as yet, unclear if Noem has any evidence for the claims made against Harvard. Around a quarter of international students from 140 countries make up Harvard’s student body. Under Noem’s order these students will have their visas revoked. On top of this, the university won’t be allowed to enrol future international students. Noem concluded a blistering statement with the following threat:
Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.
However, Harvard have now begun legal proceedings, filing a complaint which writes that the order is a:
blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
As part of their legal action against the Trump administration, the university have also filed for a temporary restraining order against Kirsti Noem.
Harvard hit back
Harvard President Alan Garber said:
The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body
Garber continued:
We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action. It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams.
As is often the case with policies from the Trump government, the legal feasibility of this move is questionable. And, in another embarrassment for Trump, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said:
The relevant actions by the U.S. side will only damage its own image and international credibility.
A senior fellow from the American Immigration Council, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, had damning comments on the case:
The letter Noem sent to Harvard cites no law violated, no regulation broken, no policy ignored; just a threat to punish Harvard for their refusal to hand over FIVE YEARS of video of every student protest at the university, among other things.
Harvard: open to the world – or it was
Current international students face chaos as their future remains uncertain. According to the order, they must transfer to another university or lose their immigration status in the US. Al Jazeera reported that some 6800 current students are at risk. Additionally, many more international students who have accepted offers to study at Harvard may be forced away from the university.
Garber asserted that the university would stand by their students:
You are our classmates and friends, our colleagues and mentors, our partners in the work of this great institution. Thanks to you, we know more and understand more, and our country and our world are more enlightened and more resilient. We will support you as we do our utmost to ensure that Harvard remains open to the world.
Harvard’s decision to take on the government is a dissenting stance amidst increasing attempts by the Trump administration to exert influence in the academic space. In a letter sent to Garber, the government attempted to interfere in the academic freedom of the university:
Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity
This “viewpoint diversity” coalesced around accusations of anti-Semitism at Harvard, along with what the Trump government see as an over-reliance on ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’
Garber found that the letter used accusations of anti-Semitism as a pretext to exert control over Harvard’s culture and intellectual freedom:
It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
Test of basic freedoms
It is no accident that the Trump administration have chosen to exert its power and control over Harvard. After a summer of pro-Palestine campus protests across America, intellectual freedom is evidently a threat to Trump. This latest attack on Harvard is, as promised, the beginning of a broader attack on America’s universities and freedom of thought. Harvard’s legal proceedings will set the tone for what could become a long and protracted battle.
After all, what’s more American than using immigrants as the battleground for a culture war?
Featured image via the Canary
