Harvard University: Social media accounts of visa applicants under scanner
In a recent update from Harvard University, the federal officials will now review the social media accounts of the visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University, reports news agency The Associated Press. The officials, through social media accounts of the applicants, will look for 'signs of antisemitism'. A cable sent Friday, signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was accessed by the news agency, The Associated Press, which accused Harvard University of failing to keep violence and antisemitism off campus.
The cable accessed by the news agency said that the vetting measure will help federal officials to identify applicants with a history of those offences, 'and to duly consider their visa eligibility under US immigration law.' The measure was then sent to all US embassies and consulates with immediate effect of the rule.
Officials have also been instructed to go beyond just reviewing social media accounts and to conduct a broader investigation of the person's online presence, according to the cable.
The measure instructs officials to note whether a visa applicant does not have an online presence or has their social media accounts set to private, and whether that 'may be reflective of evasiveness and call into question the applicant's credibility.' 'If you are not satisfied that the applicant's credibility, and to your satisfaction, meets the standards required by the visa classification for which he is applying, refuse the applicant,' the cable said.
In a shocking move, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has revoked Harvard University's certification to host international students, putting nearly 7,000 students' futures at risk. The decision, ordered by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, strips Harvard of its access to the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a crucial database for tracking international students and maintaining their visa status.
The revocation has sparked a bitter clash between the Trump administration and the prestigious Ivy League institution, potentially dealing a devastating blow to Harvard's academic identity and global reach. Without SEVIS access, Harvard cannot enroll foreign students or verify their eligibility to study in the US, leaving thousands in limbo.
(with AP inputs)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
4 hours ago
- Economic Times
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 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 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 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 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 (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
News18
6 hours ago
- News18
What Are FPV Drones, Used By Ukraine In Its Barrage On Russia's Bomber Fleet?
Last Updated: As part of Ukraine's 'Operation Spider's Web', at least 117 FPV (first-person-view) drones were smuggled into Russia and hidden in wooden cabins to be used against airbases. Ukraine unleashed a devastating drone attack on Sunday, targeting multiple Russian airbases across 4,000 km of hostile territory and damaging at least 41 nuclear bombers and warplanes. Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) carried out 'Operation Spider's Web', using first-person-view (FPV) drones, which were reportedly hidden inside makeshift wooden cabins and mounted on trucks that were parked near major military airbases. They were released from the cabins using a remote signal and swarmed the airbases, inflicting heavy damage. This marked the deepest strikes inside Russian territory since the war began in 2022. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the audacious strike was carried out after 18 months of planning, and 117 drones were used in the operation. What Are FPV Drones? First-person view drones are those where the person piloting the drone can see what the drone can see through a camera attached to its body. These drones are controlled remotely and capture real-time videos that can be seen on smartphones and other kinds of devices. These drones are also used in filming and covering high-profile events. However, one of the drawbacks of these drones is that the surroundings cannot be viewed by the operator, leading to limited situational awareness. Regardless, the inexpensive and tiny FPV drones have proved to be one of the most potent weapons in the Ukraine war. They are often laden with explosives and have a range of 5-20 km. Usually, a reconnaissance drone is deployed ahead of an FPV drone to locate enemy vulnerabilities. After locating a weakness, the FPV drone would fly at high speed into the target with greater accuracy, using the explosive to inflict damage. These drones have become one of the most widely-used weapons on the battlefield and have changed the methods of modern warfare. FPV Drones Smuggled In Russia Over 100 explosive-laden FPV drones were smuggled into Russia, where they were then placed in mobile wooden houses, a Ukrainian military source told The Associated Press. They were placed on trucks and taken close to Russian airbases, after which they were remotely opened and used to attack Russia's fleet. The drones hit 41 planes stationed at military airfields on Sunday afternoon, including A-50, Tu-95 and Tu-22M aircraft, according to the official. Ukraine claimed it had damaged 34% of Russia's fleet of air missile carriers with damages estimated at $7 billion, although the claim is yet to be verified. Unverified video and pictures posted on Russian social media showed Russian strategic bombers on fire at the strategic Belaya air base in the Irkutsk region of Siberia, which is over 4,300 km away from the border, marking Ukraine's deepest attack in Russia. However, FPV drones do not possess that range, so they had to be smuggled inside to get close enough to their targets. (with agency inputs)
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump claims Harvard is teaching ‘two plus two' in Math: Here's what is actually going on
President Donald Trump alleges Harvard to be teaching 'two plus two Math' to students The US President Donald Trump has ignited a fresh controversy involving Harvard University, alleging that the Ivy League school now teaches 'remedial math' — including basic arithmetic like 'two plus two is four'. But according to a thorough fact-check by the Associated Press (AP), those claims are not only misleading — they're false. During recent public remarks, Trump mocked Harvard for allegedly teaching first-grade-level math to incoming students. He portrayed the university as having fallen from academic rigor, saying students are now learning basics such as simple addition. The claim quickly circulated among conservative media and supporters, fueling renewed criticism of elite institutions and broader debates over declining academic standards. Here is the link to the YouTube video of President Trump accusing Harvard of teaching remedial Math: LIVE: Trump participates in swearing-in ceremony for Jeanine Pirro What is actually happening at Harvard? Harvard does not offer remedial math courses to its undergraduate students, according to the Associated Press. Instead, the university has introduced a revised version of its introductory calculus class — Mathematics MA5 — to help students who may have academic gaps caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Far from being remedial, MA5 is a full college-level course that features the same lectures, problem sets, exams, and grading criteria as the university's standard Mathematics MA class. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like USDJPY đang đi lên không? IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The only difference is that MA5 includes smaller discussion sections and additional instructional support — a structure designed to help students, particularly those from under-resourced high schools, transition into the rigors of college math. Who takes these courses? Programs like MA5 and Harvard's Rising Scholars and Emerging Scholars initiatives are aimed at students who are interested in STEM fields and may benefit from extra academic support — but they're still expected to meet the university's high standards. These offerings are not evidence of Harvard 'lowering' the bar. In fact, AP notes that the university's most recent freshman class scored a median of 790 (out of 800) on the math portion of the SAT. That's hardly a remedial cohort. Additionally, AP clarifies that while Harvard Extension School — a separate entity for working adults — does offer a precalculus course, undergraduates at Harvard College are not eligible to take it. Context behind Trump's criticism Trump's remarks come against a backdrop of escalating tensions between his administration and Harvard University. During his second term, Trump and his administration have attempted to revoke Harvard's certification to enroll international students and launched efforts to cancel roughly $100 million in federal contracts with the institution. These policy actions — and now, rhetorical attacks — have been widely interpreted as political retaliation, particularly given Harvard's legal challenges to Trump-era immigration policies. As reported by the AP, educational experts and Harvard officials alike reject the notion that the university is offering basic math to its students. Rather, they view the expanded course options and academic support as necessary, particularly in the wake of pandemic-related learning disruptions. Trump's claims about Harvard offering remedial math courses to teach 'two plus two' are not grounded in reality. As the Associated Press concludes, the university continues to uphold its demanding academic standards while offering thoughtful, data-informed support to students who need it most. In an era when facts are often eclipsed by soundbites, it's worth checking the math — and the facts. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
