Land of the free, conditions apply: How US clampdown on students and universities threatens free speech
Synopsis Amidst global outrage over visa terminations and speech restrictions, the US government is expanding social media vetting for student visa applicants, raising concerns about free speech limitations and academic freedom. While the US administration justifies its actions by citing national security, the ubiquity of internet monitoring and censorship threatens individual liberties. Singapore/Ann Arbor: On May 27, a cable was issued to US embassies and consulates around the world by US secretary of state Marco Rubio claiming that the State Department was 'conducting a review of existing operations and processes for screening and vetting of student and exchange visitor (F, M, J) visa applicants, and based on that review, plans to issue guidance on expanded social media vetting for all such applicants'. This followed the termination of sundry student visas for supporting pro-Palestinian protests - to say nothing of MIT banning graduating class president Megha Vemuri and her family from attending her graduation commencement ceremony after she delivered a pro-Palestine speech on May 29 - and a government attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling foreign students.
ADVERTISEMENT While these moves have sparked global outrage, three considerations should be examined carefully:
1. Free speech isn't an absolute right. In the US, some speech is 'unprotected', including incitement to illegal conduct, lawless action and defamation. Lesser known, because seldom enforced, is that US citizens possess greater legal protections than non-citizens, enshrined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) that grants the executive branch broad powers by which to deport non-citizens.
2. Academic protection of free speech is conferred by the Chicago Statement, adopted in 2014, which promises that 'it is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive'. However, many top US universities have not adopted it, selectively applying these rules to some audiences more than others.Since 2000, the top 10 universities - including Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown and UCLA - have sanctioned individuals 113 times, in classrooms and social media, on topics including gender, religion and Israel (and anti-Semitism). While termination of 225 scholars in the last two decades has not caused as much outrage as the expulsion of international students in 2025, it has provided fodder for present circumstances.These two reasons are grist to Trump 2.0, which has used statute and precedence to assert its supremacy through intimidation, until inhibited by law.
ADVERTISEMENT 3. Internet and smartphone ubiquity terrifies the state, because of its ability to instantly disseminate and amplify information and ideas, and convert excitement to incitement. While countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia monitor and censor content at will, it's less well known that democracies like Britain and Germany are not far behind.In Germany, Section 188, which criminalises 'insults' to politicians, led to the prosecutions of ordinary citizens for social media posts or protest letters during the last election. Remit of Section 130 ('incitement of the masses law') was expanded, resulting in prosecutions for criticism of Germany's immigration policies. Similarly, in Britain, custody data obtained by The Times shows that police officers made 12,183 arrests in 2023 under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, a 58% rise in arrests for online posts and messages since 2019.
ADVERTISEMENT No wonder the US administration feels its actions are justified. More worryingly, internet users seem oblivious to the limits of online freedom. True free speech, ultimately, exists within specified boundaries, defined by individuals, in a place not monitored by listening or recording devices. The moment this space admits device manufacturers, wireless carriers, advertisers and digital platforms, all speech is sponsored and, therefore, not free.Virality of its reach and transmission is decided by profitability of its storage, contextualisation and display volume, and is no longer controlled by the originator of that content. And when digital liberty is pitted against governmental sovereignty - because the former can't be localised or negated - individual freedoms and protections will be the first casualties in a looking glass war to protect national security.
ADVERTISEMENT Between the 1st c. and 4th c. to avoid Roman persecution, Christians withdrew and hid in catacombs, identified themselves by signs and waited patiently for deliverance. The digital age may witness a similar reaction, in which regular users will likely retreat into private chat groups, strengthen their resolve and await a more liberal climate. And the state will once again force citizens to espouse their grievances in private and to adhere to the party line in public.
In the end, the real losers will be US universities, which could lose scholastic quantity and quality. And digital platforms, which may lose the momentum of guaranteed traffic flows. Over time, as creative protesters produce new memes and symbols to build solidarity, indiscriminate government vigilance and repression may increase to the point where the voting public is forced to slough off its inertia and bring about change. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
NEXT STORY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
9 minutes ago
- News18
Why Is Anti-Semitism Cool Now?
A Muslim Egyptian who came to the US as a tourist but stayed on after his visa expired, attacked people demonstrating at a mall demanding the release of Israeli hostages After 20 months of relentless demonisation of Israel, people in the West, especially mainstream media, are now feigning surprise at the rising number of attacks on Jewish events—and Jews—in US! If that is not egregious, what is? A majority of the student body across universities, besides sizeable section of the entire young cohort there today, has been convinced that it is cool, and righteous, to chant for the destruction of Israel and, by extension, Jews anywhere. Indian-American student Megha Vemuri using the platform of a commencement event last week to lash out at her alma mater Massachusetts Institute of Technology over its ties with Israel and praise the campus protests about Gaza, wearing a keffiyeh over her graduation gown, is just the latest example of the impact of this widespread indoctrination. It just goes to show that even education often has very little to do with common sense or powers of discernment. This week, a Muslim Egyptian who came to the US as a tourist but stayed on after his visa expired, attacked people demonstrating at a mall demanding the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. He used a flamethrower to cause horrific burn injuries to 12 people and shouted, 'Free Palestine". Two weeks earlier, a 30-year-old man pumped 21 bullets into two people at the National Jewish Museum in Washington DC and also later screamed 'Free Palestine". In April, a man set fire to the home of Democrat Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (once considered as a running mate for Kamala Harris in 2024) with Molotov cocktails while the family was inside celebrating the Jewish ritual of Passover. The man admitted he targeted Shapiro because of his views on Gaza. Yet, incredibly, media reports averred that 'law enforcement officials have not conclusively said his alleged attack was motivated by hate or anti-Semitism"! This happens when obvious questions are deliberately not asked. The most long-standing of this ask-not-tell-not charade relates to death tolls and Israel's choice of targets. 'Reporters" (all Palestinians) reel off death tolls and show bodies (especially of children), but do not mention the extensive tunnels found under Gaza, including under hospitals, stocked with food, medicines and weapons. That begs the obvious unasked question: how did these items get there unaided? Moreover, why are Hamas-run 'health ministry' casualty numbers of Israeli Defence Force attacks taken as truth even though they do not specify how many are its own cadres? Foreign doctors shown on TV attending to injured children and women also minister to Hamas cadres who access hospitals through tunnel networks. Why are these doctors not asked about the health of the hostages who are still alive or how Hamas manages to get medical treatment for its men? That points to another deliberate silence: on distribution of food and medicines in Gaza. The current refrain is that 'civilians" are on the brink of starvation and a 'humanitarian crisis" and that the US and Israeli-managed new distribution system there is an abject failure. Media is magnifying the assertion that unless the same entities who were dispensing aid there before, particularly the discredited UN Relief and Works Agency, are allowed to do so again, Gazans are doomed. The questions never asked or probed include, what proof is there that aid was not being diverted to terrorists of Hamas, that runs Gaza? How did Hamas get supplies after Israeli attacks began, unless from UNRWA? Are the armed gangs waylaying food trucks really independents or Hamas proxies? No questions about the condition of the few Israeli hostages still alive, nor any media investigation into how the rest died, or why Hamas has refused to hand over their bodies. The skewed rules have been set, of course, by the blatantly biased coverage of the Russia-Ukraine war. Hours were and still are devoted to the vilification of Vladimir Putin and hailing every speech of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, with no nuances. The impression disseminated is that all Ukrainians support their president. Is such unanimity possible in a democracy? Dissent is taken as a given in Russia—a known autocracy—but none is assumed in 'free" Ukraine? Phone surveys in Ukraine (including by The Economist, whose findings on India are invariably grim) claim Zelenskyy's approval now stands at 67-70 per cent. Yet for Putin, whose popularity also hovers at 70-90 per cent, qualifiers are added, such as 'His high approval ratings do not necessarily reflect genuine loyalty or agreement with his policies. Instead, they result from political apathy, symbolic allegiance, and lack of viable alternatives." Why this Volod-Vlad double standard? Zelenskyy's unending demands for more and more sophisticated arms are not parsed as war mongering; in fact, he has attained a Nelson Mandela-like star status with front row seats at every world leaders' jamboree. Realistic assessments of either Russia's war effort or popular opinion there. For example. the Atlantic Council, in two reports 11 months apart in 2024, first contended that most Russians want the war to end but later recanted and said most support it. That raises serious doubts about the sources of western information on Russia. India has also been relegated to the Russia-Israel doghouse by the western media, which unleashed a similar biased coverage campaign on, first, the terror attack in Pahalgam and then India's Operation Sindoor retaliatory strikes Pakistan's terror camps and military launchpads. The western media has been seeking out dissenting voices in India—but not in Pakistan. They have questioned all of India's statements, even when provided proof of veracity but not Pakistan's. So, if any people should understand the danger of this sort of one-sided coverage and biased opinion-mongering, it is Indians. In the past decade, India has been the target of charges of all kinds from data-fudging to genocide, in sync with its rising profile. India's economic credentials have been the focus of criticism and scepticism from the west for over a decade; the recent uptick in western media attacks on its geo-political moves, including Op Sindoor are thus expected. Being afraid of Islam—a less used definition of Islamophobia—and Islamists and therefore being chary of measures to counter terror groups and radicals lest they are accused of the better-known definition of Islamophobia has made the west cede far too much ground on anti-Semitism. How much longer will activists be allowed to propagate false or exaggerated narratives on Gaza—its roots, its reality and its goals under Hamas—to capture impressionable hearts and minds? The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 04, 2025, 19:24 IST News opinion Opinion | Why Is Anti-Semitism Cool Now?
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
17 minutes ago
- First Post
Russia suffered 1 million casualties to capture just 12% territory in Ukraine: Study
Russia has suffered 1 million troop casualties and lost a third of its Black Sea fleet and a third of its long-range bombers' and surveillance aircraft's fleets to capture just 12% of Ukraine's territory in the full-scale war since February 2022. read more Russia has paid a disproportionately high cost in the ongoing war on Ukraine, according to publicly available data and a study published this week. Since February 2022, when Russia launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine at the orders of President Vladimir Putin, the country's forces have just captured around 12 per cent of Ukrainian territories. But the costs have been huge. In a study published this week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) assessed that Russia has suffered around 1 million troop casualties since it launched the full-scale invasion in 2022. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Out of these casualties, around 250,000 soldiers were killed and the rest were injured, according to the study. Do Russian costs outweigh benefits in Ukraine war? Besides the soldiers, Russia's material costs have been huge as well. In the ongoing war, Russia has lost nearly a third of its Black Sea fleet, including the flagship Moskva and at least one submarine, and Ukraine has killed some of the top Russian generals. In an audacious drone attack over the weekend, Ukraine also destroyed nearly a third of Russia's long-range, nuclear-capable bombers' fleet and also struck two of the six surveillance aircraft. Moreover, Russia has lost strategic autonomy to China. After Western sanctions threatened to cripple the Russian economy, China came to Russia's aid and bought its energy exports and provided it with supplies needed to sustain the war and consumer goods as well. Far from being mutually-beneficial, the partnership is so lopsided that scholars say that China has become a subservient partner of China. With such losses to manpower, equipment, and strategic autonomy, Russia has just captured 12 per cent of Ukrainian territory. Since January 2024, the pace of Russia's advance has been such that it has captured just 1 per cent of Ukrainian territory, as per the CSIS study. Overall, Russia currently controls around 19 per cent of Ukrainian territory, according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). However, Russia has captured just 12 per cent of Ukrainian territory since 2022 and the rest 7 per cent territory was captured between 2014 and 2022. In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine's Crimea region, captured it, and annexed it after a sham referendum. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD During 2014-22, pro-Russia insurgents captured nearly a third of eastern Ukraine's Donbas regions, comprising Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. Together, Crimea (around 4-5 per cent) and Donbas (2-3 per cent) contributed to around 7 per cent of Ukrainian territory that Russia captured during 2014-22.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
India's moment in becoming a global education hub amid shifting global dynamics
India's moment in becoming a global education hub amid shifting global dynamics As the global landscape of higher education undergoes significant upheaval, India finds itself at a pivotal juncture. The recent policies of the Trump administration in the United States, particularly those affecting international students at prestigious institutions like Harvard and Columbia, have created ripples of uncertainty. This turbulence presents a unique opportunity for India to emerge as a preferred destination for international education. The US policy shift and its implications In 2025, the Trump administration intensified scrutiny on international students, citing concerns over national security and ideological conformity. Harvard University faced threats of revocation of its ability to host international students, with the Department of Homeland Security alleging insufficient responses to antisemitism and inappropriate coordination with foreign entities. A federal judge extended a temporary restraining order blocking this move, but the situation has already caused fear and confusion among international students, leading to visa delays and increased scrutiny at the border. Similarly, Columbia University became the epicenter of nationwide demonstrations, with the administration's executive order directing universities to monitor and report on the activities of international students and staff. The order, aimed at combating antisemitism, came in response to a surge of incidents on college campuses, leading to widespread campus unrest and protests. These actions have not only disrupted the academic pursuits of thousands of international students but have also raised questions about the United States' commitment to academic freedom and diversity. A global shift in student mobility The ramifications of these policies are evident in the shifting patterns of global student mobility: 1. Over 6.3 million students studied abroad in 2022, with projections indicating this number will rise to 8 million by 2030. 2. Asia contributes over 50% of the world's international students, with China and India leading the numbers. 3. Traditional destinations like the US, UK, and Australia saw a 17% drop in new student enrollments during the 2020–21 academic year, partly due to restrictive visa policies. 4. Canada and Germany witnessed increases of 20% and 16% respectively in international enrollments during the same period, attributed to more welcoming visa norms. 5. Surveys indicate that 46% of students are open to studying in emerging destinations, provided the quality of education and post-study opportunities are strong. These statistics highlight a growing openness among students to explore alternative destinations that offer quality education without the associated uncertainties. India's opportunity India, with its rich academic heritage, English-speaking environment, and a growing number of institutions meeting international standards, is well-positioned to attract students seeking quality education in a welcoming setting. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 aims to internationalize higher education, making it more accessible and globally competitive. To capitalise on this opportunity, India must: • Simplify visa and immigration policies: Implement a fast, transparent, and student-friendly visa process, including longer-term study permits and smoother transitions to post-study work. • Invest in international branding: Launch a coordinated campaign to position India as a premier destination for higher education, highlighting its strengths in various disciplines. • Enhance infrastructure and quality: Invest in world-class research infrastructure, modern pedagogy, and global accreditations to ensure that institutions meet international standards. • Build strategic alliances: Forge partnerships with globally respected universities to offer dual degrees, faculty exchanges, and collaborative research opportunities. • Engage the global south: Position India as an education destination for students from Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East by offering scholarships and capacity-building initiatives. The current global dynamics present a unique opportunity for India to redefine its role in the international education landscape. By embracing this moment with strategic initiatives and policy reforms, India can not only attract a diverse student population but also reinforce its position as a global leader in higher education. Authored by Dr. Vidya Yeravdekar, Pro Chancellor - Symbiosis International (Deemed University) Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
