The Trump Administration and International Student Enrollment at Harvard
By Richard Y. Rodgers
Today, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moved to suspend international students’ current and future enrollment at Harvard University, citing serious concerns about national security, institutional noncompliance, and a campus climate increasingly hostile to federal oversight. While the enforcement of this decision has been paused, the broader question cannot be ignored: What is Harvard’s role as an American institution?
Harvard is not a sovereign entity. Claiming a public mission, she operates under the protection of American law and has, until recently, reaped the benefits of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. Yet in practice, she often acts as though she is answerable to no one—not to Congress, not to the courts, and certainly not to the American people.
According to the DHS, Harvard has recklessly disregarded her legal responsibilities under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. These alleged violations include improperly monitoring international students, ignoring basic compliance requirements tied to her participation in federal immigration programs, and refusing to disclose foreign funding, especially from actors tied to the Chinese Communist Party. If these claims are valid, Harvard has grossly violated the public trust.
As the legal battle unfolds, one truth must remain clear: Harvard exists to form American leaders in service of American ideals. She owes nothing to those diametrically opposed to the American vision or way of life.
The Harvard Salient stands with the rule of law, ordered liberty, and the renewal of American higher education. The United States is a Nation of People bound by more than geography. We have a shared civic and moral purpose. If Harvard truly seeks to lead, she must begin by fostering order, respecting the nation that has faithfully sustained her, and speaking the truth, however unpopular it may be in the Yard.
 | A guest post by
|
Well said, Salient leadership! Harvard has drifted off course in recent decades and needs to recommit to its basic mission and role in the world.
This editorial perpetuates the same lame rhetorical tricks of the Trump administration. That's sad, especially at the start-up stage of The Salient. When I subscribed to this channel, I was hopeful that it would provide a window into the intellectualism of the conservative movement of the 21st century. If I wanted to read dumb Trump propaganda magnified, I easily could get that in a thousand other places. So let me start with my assumptions: 1. The people behind The Salient are smart, caring, and want the best for the United States, Harvard, and everyone in the country (that's why I subscribed). 2. The people behind The Salient want to raise interesting and intellectual topics not covered elsewhere, with a conservative foundation to their paradigm. 3. The Salient is grounded in Truth, regardless of the political consequences of sharing the Truth. And, 4. I could learn something from the writers of The Salient. ... On the flip side, this editorial disrupts all of those assumptions as it takes a sketchy institutional claim from a partisan bootlicking hack at the DHS, abstracts it into a broad attack on an extremely complex, diverse, complicated, and beloved American institution (yes, one with flaws, and those should be raised, too). Harvard is one of the country's highest and most-enduring sources of pride and achievement globally, being attacked (not improved) by another American institution, for whose benefit? And then this editorial grandstands about supporting "the rule of law." So I checked the archives of The Salient and could not find anywhere similar and passionate editorials by this writer or others about executive branch overreach under Trump that actually violates law and has been determined as so in real courts. This editorial provides no specific charges, facts, or evidence. I was quite disappointed in that approach. It instead asserts "serious concerns about national security, institutional noncompliance, and a campus climate increasingly hostile to federal oversight" but can't bother to mention a single case, with any details? I mean, The Salient can go this route, I suppose, and be another amplifying mouthpiece for empty assertions of grand malfeasance by the Trump cult. But why? I recommend The Salient instead asserts its independence from stupidity and focuses on providing a reasoned, fact-filled article (or even an editorial) that even the most-liberal American can read and say, OK, that was fair, and it makes a good point; I should think about that more. Almost every abstract sentence in this piece could be pulled out and made into an interesting claim. But most of them are unfounded, at least by what I can find on The Salient. It also assumes guilt, not innocence, which is patently un-American. If you think differently, base these articles in contextualized facts; make them warranted with evidence, follow the evidence and share the whole Truth with your readers (not just the part of the Truth that is convenient). Otherwise, I also have better things to do with my time than read this sort of blather. And I imagine other readers will feel the same way.