While I think Trump is grandstanding, several universities have allowed this to go beyond the pale for several years.
Last edited:
Trump bars all international students from Harvard
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
They just have to make jews uncomfortable, and feel threatened. Thats the whole reason for the expulsion of immigrants.
But those terms rely entirely on your support or dismissal of the subject.
So J6 was great (if it were a protest), Palestine protests evil, in your world.
If someone engages in assault or physical intimidation it would be justified to see them out.
But that is not what this is about when you look at the demands of the Trump administration in its entirety.
It is very much an issue of ethnicity and colour which a lot of people are agreeing to as well.
It is just part of a larger and more broader attack on immigrants, particularly immigrants of colour in general by this administration.
It's always great to cite things, but you are generalizing without specifics.
No offense, I don't care who agrees with you. A lot of people agree means very little on social media.
Again, the Trump Administration believes it can in this case discriminate against temporary residents that agitate and cross thresholds of civil conduct that many universities fail to uphold.
By the way, your language reveals the spin. These foreign students are not immigrants. They are temporary residents granted privileges to study in the U.S. '
In any event, foreigners of color are not the target. Harvard is the target. Some of it is about choking Harvard of a foreign source of funds that allow it to retain their endowment without helping deserving American students to enroll.
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University's ability to enroll foreign students, calling the order a "blatant violation" of the U.S. Constitution.
Harvard filed a complaint Friday morning in Boston federal court, and U.S. District judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later freezing the policy.
"Revoking Harvard’s certification is unlawful many times over," the judge wrote in her order. "It is a pillar of our constitutional system that the government cannot 'invok[e] legal sanctions and other means of coercion' to police private speech, especially when the government’s treatment is animated by viewpoint discrimination. The government’s effort to punish the University for its refusal to surrender its academic independence and for its perceived viewpoint is a patent violation of the First Amendment."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump accused of new grift that puts Qatari plane in shade
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson dismissed Harvard's lawsuit as "frivolous."
"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," Jackson said. "Harvard should spend their time and resources on creating a safe campus environment instead of filing frivolous lawsuits."
CNN's Elie Honig said the temporary restraining order was a significant win for the university.
"It is a big win for Harvard, temporary but very significant," Honig said. "What this says is the court is blocking the Trump administration from blocking Harvard from bringing in international students. In other words, as of this moment, it's back to the status quo. Harvard may continue to bring in international students."
'Unlawful many times over': Judge issues 'big win for Harvard' in Trump lawsuit
Harvard filed a complaint Friday morning in Boston federal court, and U.S. District judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later freezing the policy.
"Revoking Harvard’s certification is unlawful many times over," the judge wrote in her order. "It is a pillar of our constitutional system that the government cannot 'invok[e] legal sanctions and other means of coercion' to police private speech, especially when the government’s treatment is animated by viewpoint discrimination. The government’s effort to punish the University for its refusal to surrender its academic independence and for its perceived viewpoint is a patent violation of the First Amendment."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump accused of new grift that puts Qatari plane in shade
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson dismissed Harvard's lawsuit as "frivolous."
"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," Jackson said. "Harvard should spend their time and resources on creating a safe campus environment instead of filing frivolous lawsuits."
CNN's Elie Honig said the temporary restraining order was a significant win for the university.
"It is a big win for Harvard, temporary but very significant," Honig said. "What this says is the court is blocking the Trump administration from blocking Harvard from bringing in international students. In other words, as of this moment, it's back to the status quo. Harvard may continue to bring in international students."
'Unlawful many times over': Judge issues 'big win for Harvard' in Trump lawsuit
So now you are concerned about monarchs of small countries and their access to America's premier institutions.
I would be concerned about the foreign students who are engaged in STEM research. If I had to guess, they will not have any problems getting student visas.
The first part of the judicial reasons striking down this sad, Trump-diarrhea bullshit for all the many, many reasons that it was completely and utterly illegal.
INTRODUCTION
For more than 70 years, Harvard University (“Harvard” or the “University”) has been
certified by the federal government to enroll international students under the F-1 visa program,
and it has long been designated as an exchange visitor program sponsor to host J-1 nonimmigrants.
Harvard has, over this time, developed programs and degrees tailored to its international students
and invested millions to recruit the most talented such students and integrate them into all aspects
of the Harvard community. Yesterday, the government abruptly revoked Harvard’s certification to
host F-1 and J-1 students1 without process or cause, to devastating effect for Harvard and more
than 7,000 Harvard students and affiliates on F-1 and J-1 visas.
The government’s revocation of Harvard’s certification was not a product of the ordinary
review process set out in detailed regulations that define the limited circumstances under which a
school’s certification may be revoked and put a premium on the due process rights of institutions
and students. On its face, the revocation is part of the government’s broader effort to retaliate
against Harvard for its refusal to surrender its academic independence.
2 In response to the government’s disagreement with the perceived viewpoints of Harvard, its faculty, and its students,
the government issued a series of demands requiring Harvard to submit to government oversight of the faculty it hires,
the students it admits, and the courses it teaches. When Harvard declined,
the Administration unleashed the full power of the federal government, freezing billions in federal
grants, proposing to eliminate Harvard’s tax-exempt status, opening multiple federal
investigations, and—most relevant here—threatening to terminate Harvard’s participation in the
F-1 and J-1 visa programs.
Yesterday, the government made good on that threat—and it did so via a letter that makes
plain that DHS is not even pretending to follow its own regulations, either as to process or as to
substance. Instead, DHS all but announced that the revocation is blatantly in retaliation for
Harvard’s exercise of its academic freedom.
Revoking Harvard’s certification is unlawful many times over. It is a pillar of our
constitutional system that the government cannot “invok[e] legal sanctions and other means of
coercion” to police private speech, especially when the government’s treatment is animated by
viewpoint discrimination. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (quoting
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963)). Prohibitions on viewpoint discrimination
and on retaliation for protected speech are at the core of the First Amendment’s protections. And
especially so here, because “academic freedom” is “a special concern of the First Amendment.”
Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967). The government’s effort
to punish the University for its refusal to surrender its academic independence and for its perceived
viewpoint is a patent violation of the First Amendment.
The government’s action also violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the
Fifth Amendment in ways that underscore that what is really going on here is not a concern that
Harvard has a noncompliant F-1 visa program, but rather undisguised retaliation. The revocation
is quintessential arbitrary, irrational, and unilateral executive action. The government bypassed its
own regulatory framework, which—recognizing the school’s and its students’ weighty reliance
interests—specifies detailed procedures and standards for withdrawing a school’s certification. At
the same time, DHS ran roughshod over procedural due process protections, not to mention the
procedural protections in its own regulations. DHS imposed a penalty that is wholly
unprecedented, and which it has no authority to impose under the circumstances. And DHS’s
explanation in its letter—which vaguely gestures toward unexplained “reporting requirements”
and then declares that DHS will “root out the evils of anti-Americanism”—is the quintessence of
arbitrary and capricious agency decisionmaking.
Emergency relief is essential.
2 This case stems from the same campaign of retaliation as described in President and Fellows of
Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. 25-cv-11048 (D.
Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (the “Funding Case”), in which Harvard has challenged the government’s
freeze and terminations of billions of dollars in multi-year grants to Harvard. DHS’s revocation of
Harvard’s longstanding certification to enroll international students involves a different adverse
action against Harvard, but like the Funding Case, this case involves a coordinat
INTRODUCTION
For more than 70 years, Harvard University (“Harvard” or the “University”) has been
certified by the federal government to enroll international students under the F-1 visa program,
and it has long been designated as an exchange visitor program sponsor to host J-1 nonimmigrants.
Harvard has, over this time, developed programs and degrees tailored to its international students
and invested millions to recruit the most talented such students and integrate them into all aspects
of the Harvard community. Yesterday, the government abruptly revoked Harvard’s certification to
host F-1 and J-1 students1 without process or cause, to devastating effect for Harvard and more
than 7,000 Harvard students and affiliates on F-1 and J-1 visas.
The government’s revocation of Harvard’s certification was not a product of the ordinary
review process set out in detailed regulations that define the limited circumstances under which a
school’s certification may be revoked and put a premium on the due process rights of institutions
and students. On its face, the revocation is part of the government’s broader effort to retaliate
against Harvard for its refusal to surrender its academic independence.
2 In response to the government’s disagreement with the perceived viewpoints of Harvard, its faculty, and its students,
the government issued a series of demands requiring Harvard to submit to government oversight of the faculty it hires,
the students it admits, and the courses it teaches. When Harvard declined,
the Administration unleashed the full power of the federal government, freezing billions in federal
grants, proposing to eliminate Harvard’s tax-exempt status, opening multiple federal
investigations, and—most relevant here—threatening to terminate Harvard’s participation in the
F-1 and J-1 visa programs.
Yesterday, the government made good on that threat—and it did so via a letter that makes
plain that DHS is not even pretending to follow its own regulations, either as to process or as to
substance. Instead, DHS all but announced that the revocation is blatantly in retaliation for
Harvard’s exercise of its academic freedom.
Revoking Harvard’s certification is unlawful many times over. It is a pillar of our
constitutional system that the government cannot “invok[e] legal sanctions and other means of
coercion” to police private speech, especially when the government’s treatment is animated by
viewpoint discrimination. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (quoting
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963)). Prohibitions on viewpoint discrimination
and on retaliation for protected speech are at the core of the First Amendment’s protections. And
especially so here, because “academic freedom” is “a special concern of the First Amendment.”
Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967). The government’s effort
to punish the University for its refusal to surrender its academic independence and for its perceived
viewpoint is a patent violation of the First Amendment.
The government’s action also violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the
Fifth Amendment in ways that underscore that what is really going on here is not a concern that
Harvard has a noncompliant F-1 visa program, but rather undisguised retaliation. The revocation
is quintessential arbitrary, irrational, and unilateral executive action. The government bypassed its
own regulatory framework, which—recognizing the school’s and its students’ weighty reliance
interests—specifies detailed procedures and standards for withdrawing a school’s certification. At
the same time, DHS ran roughshod over procedural due process protections, not to mention the
procedural protections in its own regulations. DHS imposed a penalty that is wholly
unprecedented, and which it has no authority to impose under the circumstances. And DHS’s
explanation in its letter—which vaguely gestures toward unexplained “reporting requirements”
and then declares that DHS will “root out the evils of anti-Americanism”—is the quintessence of
arbitrary and capricious agency decisionmaking.
Emergency relief is essential.
2 This case stems from the same campaign of retaliation as described in President and Fellows of
Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. 25-cv-11048 (D.
Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (the “Funding Case”), in which Harvard has challenged the government’s
freeze and terminations of billions of dollars in multi-year grants to Harvard. DHS’s revocation of
Harvard’s longstanding certification to enroll international students involves a different adverse
action against Harvard, but like the Funding Case, this case involves a coordinat
I don't know if it's a "blatant" violation of the Constitution. It would seem Harvard has some rights, but I wonder if the government administers quotas on foreign students. Foreign students themselves have no right to study in the U.S.
The problem starts with major universities having a level of self-government and not creating safe campus environments for all students. I don't think anyone cares if foreign students organize themselves and other students to march peacefully around the campus. Although that seems to be the default straw man argument.
I heard an interesting precedent today. The Obama Administration threatened to cut off federal funds to universities who didn't adjudicate and punish rape cases within their university judicial systems. (University judicial systems relative to rape accusations is a whole separate topic.) What distinguishes this from Trump-Harvard is that Trump is singling out Harvard in a arbitrary manner which probably weakens the case for the government's action.
That wasn't even their stated intent.
Their stated intent per their letter to Harvard, was not just to target international students, but also to target DEI programs, dictate points of view and even demand demographic adjustments in the student and faculty body by way of admissions and hiring reform.
All of this is the administration's policy to attack people of colour and more specifically in this particular case, attack immigrants of colour (which they are doing in various ways outside of the student program as well).
By the way the term immigrant is colloquially how people refer to anyone who lives in the country who is not a citizen.
Harvard is the case study and as I said in my first post, if the administration is successful in its efforts, this will form the blueprint for the fascist take over of America's intellectual spaces.
That is because the Supreme Court basically overturned affirmative action. Universities can have DEI programs but the Court has defanged the "E" equity. Yet, some universities have continually tried to skirt the intent of the decision and some times they have been repeatedly dragged into court. I believe also that institutions that receive federal funds cannot discriminate in hiring based on political affiliation as well as race, religion, etc. That kind of makes sense when you read it out loud.
I can respect yours and others opinions, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept quibbling about our laws. The Federal government has basically said enough with this idea that if Federal law does not comport with your ideology you are not going to be permitted to decide you don't want to comply with the law or enforce the law. This will hold for City officials, Judges, universities, etc. Yes, sometimes enforcing laws on the books looks like fascism. I can see the confusion.
Getting back to the my earlier point, the Trump Administration demands of Harvard are very public. You might find I agree with some of your point if you cite specifics that you find objectionable.
No, never heard the term immigrants applied to foreign students. I am active with my university and I assure you we have a large percentage of foreign students. For reference, while many foreign students immigrate to the U.S. technically they are not in the process of immigrating to the U.S. That happens when they apply for a work permit after graduating and then work towards getting a green card. A great many return home to start their careers.
The straw man is that most of the protests are peaceful and we are impinging on student's rights. All anyone has to do is call up on youtube recent violent and intimidating campus protests.
So no, it just means universities will have to pay attention to how they enforce U.S. laws on campus. If they expel students who are hyper-aggressive and violent in their protests, the problem will disappear almost immediately. The tolerance of intimidation and violent protests is the problem.
Last edited:
Here's an interesting policy of Hillsdale College a well-known conservative, Christian college.
Independent, on Principle
As a matter of principle, Hillsdale doesn’t accept any federal or state subsidy to fund its operations, not even indirectly in the form of federal student aid. Instead, we provide for student aid with our own private funds.
Given what I know of Hillsdale, this allows them to teach and adhere to their core conservative principles without government interference. I offer this as a juxtaposition to universities which have instituted defacto progressive policies in hiring and governance. This while emboldening or at a minimum permitting progressive students/faculty to intimidate and chastise nonconforming students/faculty.
Independent, on Principle
As a matter of principle, Hillsdale doesn’t accept any federal or state subsidy to fund its operations, not even indirectly in the form of federal student aid. Instead, we provide for student aid with our own private funds.
Given what I know of Hillsdale, this allows them to teach and adhere to their core conservative principles without government interference. I offer this as a juxtaposition to universities which have instituted defacto progressive policies in hiring and governance. This while emboldening or at a minimum permitting progressive students/faculty to intimidate and chastise nonconforming students/faculty.
Last edited:
Chill mandy. It was pretty obvious that a court would strike this down.
I'm not even sure the Trump Administration thought that it would stick. They are merely using Harvard as the poster boy for progressive excesses in academia. Harvard hasn't exactly been on solid ground for awhile. Some of Harvard's prominent donors forced out the President last year.
you know we all get old. The idea is not growing into an old fart.
my message to all other US universities who don't want the same hustle as Harvard? Don't refuse admission to Barron.
You are arguing you know more about the constitution than the judge on the case?
That's like saying relax, J6 wasn't a successful coup, don't worry about it.
Oh wait, that is what you say.
I view it like the tariffs where he went after everybody. That's what he usually does. He has a hard on for Harvard for whatever reason. I don't think this is about ethnic cleansing because I'm sure among those international students, some are probably white. I think this is more to hurt Harvard financially since a quarter of their students are from foreign countries that pay full price. Just like him trying to pull government funding from Harvard which has nothing to do with race or ethnicityBecause they're opportunistic and haphazard and the process of ethnically cleansing the US is just beginning??
