Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Why Is Harvard the Only University That Can’t Have International Students?

by June 17, 2025
June 17, 2025
Why Is Harvard the Only University That Can’t Have International Students?

Stephen Richer

I just got back from oral argument in Harvard v. US Department of Homeland Security, where Harvard’s attorney argued that the government should be further enjoined from revoking visas from the approximately 7,000 international students and researchers currently at the university (background here).

There are a lot of arguments in play. And each argument has different subcomponents. Former Acting US Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn, now of Jenner & Block, spoke on behalf of Harvard. Despite his immense experience and the ample time allotted by the court, he seemed to struggle to cover all the ways he believes the government’s action is unlawful.

But the gravamen of the hearing was the government’s inability to answer this question in a way that doesn’t violate the First Amendment: “Why is the government only targeting Harvard?”

The government might justify its ban on foreign students from a national security standpoint. For example, the government might say that “these international students are national security risks.”

But why then are these students allowed to attend Yale, the University of Alabama, or the University of Washington? How would they be any less of a national security threat by attending one of those schools instead?

Or the government might say that “just as state-based universities serve state interests, so should American universities serve American interests, and therefore Harvard can only allot 10% of its classroom seats to international students.” 

But presumably this would apply to all schools, not just Harvard. And no other school has been targeted.

Or the government might say that “international students are problematically additive to the well-documented problem of Jewish hate on college campuses.” 

But Harvard is far from the only school with an anti-Semitism problem. 

The government’s attorney (Tiberius Davis, who did a nice job in a challenging spot) argued that just because police officers don’t stop every speeding car doesn’t mean they can’t enforce speeding regulations against some cars.

That’s logical.

But in this case, the government has only targeted one car. 

And for that reason, it’s hard to avoid thinking that the administration’s actions against Harvard—including the attempted banishment of international students, which make up 27% of Harvard—are because it doesn’t like Harvard’s politics or because Harvard hasn’t played ball with President Trump. 

Since the Harvard-Trump fight started, President Trump has said Harvard “keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist-inspired” ideas, that the school is “not all friendly to the United States,” and that the school is filled with “radicalized lunatics.” 

Even if these things are true, they are protected by the First Amendment, and the federal government can’t punish Harvard with unprecedented penalties just because the school is home to some radical lefties.

It’s why Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of FIRE, the country’s premier defender of free speech at colleges, has repeatedly defended Harvard against the administration’s actions, even while simultaneously criticizing many of Harvard’s practices:

April 24: “‘The Harvard deserves it’ crowd is missing the point: This isn’t just about Harvard. If the government can demand ideological litmus tests from them, what will schools—or nonprofits—with less power do when they’re the ones on the chopping block?”
 
April 24: “Yes, Harvard has been ideologically captured. Also, yes, the government’s response is lawless, chilling, & dangerous. It’s possible to hold both views at once.”
 
May 22: “Trump bars Harvard from enrolling international students in alarming crackdown on speech.” (emphasis added)
 
May 23: “I really want to stress that the government’s demand that Harvard turn over five years of footage of protests—not limited to those that got out of control or involved illegal behavior—is one of the more chilling things I’ve seen in my career.” (emphasis added)

And it’s also why I think that Judge Allison Burroughs will again rule against the administration and prohibit the administration from revoking the visas of Harvard’s international students.

(Disclosure: I am currently a Visiting Senior Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.)

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Tax changes ‘threaten future of horse racing’, warns parliamentary group
next post
Reagan-nominated federal judge accuses Trump admin of ‘discrimination’ with cuts to NIH diversity grants

You may also like

Does Section 230 Cover Generative AI?

December 6, 2023

How the Electoral College Works To Cabin Fraud...

March 12, 2024

Cato’s new Globalization Quiz Tests Your Knowledge (and...

September 26, 2023

The Xylazine Scourge Widens

July 17, 2024

House Tax Bill Doesn’t Kill Green New Deal...

May 15, 2025

NRA v. Vullo: A Big First Amendment Win...

May 31, 2024

The National Security Bureaucracy Is Unwell

November 21, 2023

The Price of Shortsightedness: Emergency Spending’s $2 Trillion...

March 7, 2024

Vermont Poised to Join the Grassroots Uprising Against...

January 11, 2024

The Racial Impact of Professional Licensing

August 5, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • UK Government unveils £92bn transport overhaul to drive growth and connect communities

      July 8, 2025
    • New book exposes Jill Biden’s power grab amid husband’s political demise

      July 8, 2025
    • Tariff Shock Spurs “Buy-the-Dip” Setups in Tesla and ON Semiconductor

      July 8, 2025
    • Trump’s tariffs send UK borrowing costs soaring, forcing Reeves to rethink economic roadmap

      July 8, 2025
    • Government bans NDAs that silence harassment and discrimination victims

      July 8, 2025
    • Monzo fined £21m after fraudsters open accounts using ‘Buckingham Palace’ as home address

      July 8, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,421)
    • Investing (2,105)
    • Politics (15,966)
    • Stocks (3,193)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved