Harvard University, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, just won a huge legal victory. This victory overturns the Trump administration’s abrupt decision to cut off enrollment for international students. On Thursday, they doubled down by issuing a Harvard-specific ban affecting more than 7,000 visa holders. This dynamic cohort is largely made up of US-based graduate students from over 100 countries. On Friday morning, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs of Boston granted a temporary restraining order. This move temporarily prevented any new foreign student enrollments from being banned under this policy, which meant the university could continue to admit these students.
The Trump administration’s action led Harvard to file a lawsuit in federal court in Boston, claiming that the government’s decision violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Harvard University’s administration argued that the ban would have an “immediate and devastating effect” on the institution and its international student body.
Alan Garber, a representative from Harvard University, stated, “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.”
In their legal challenge, Department of Justice officials disregarded the crucial role international students played to Harvard’s mission. The university emphasized that “with the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the university and its mission.”
Beyond Harvard’s litigation efforts, influential civic leaders and advocates from all walks of life expressed alarm at the prospect of a ban. Karl Lauterbach, former German health minister and Harvard alumnus, slammed the administration’s move. He termed their approach “research policy suicide.” Germany’s research minister, Dorothee Baer, expressed outrage over the Trump administration’s move. She called on them to withdraw it, calling the proposal “fatal” to the success of collaborative research projects.
Anthony Archeval, the acting director of the office for civil rights at HHS, presented a practitioner’s perspective on the emerging landscape. He warned against the larger impact of such policies on schools and colleges.
Even in the wake of this backlash from all corners, there were still some voices within the political sphere who spoke out against Harvard’s reaction. Abigail Jackson remarked, “If only Harvard cared this much about ending the scourge of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators on their campus they wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.” She added, “Harvard should spend their time and resources on creating a safe campus environment instead of filing frivolous lawsuits.”
Upon hearing these facts, Judge Burroughs issued a landmark decision. In return, Harvard University has pledged to vigorously defend its academic independence and integrity from what it considers retaliatory attacks by the federal government. The administration has firmly stated that “this retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country.”
The sweeping ruling returns the university’s right to admit international students. It showcases how essential a diverse academic workforce is, particularly in leading academic institutions. Without its international students, Harvard would cease to be Harvard. Indeed, the very character and mission of the university would be deeply threatened.