US signals it may back off immediate revocation in Harvard foreign students case
BOSTON: The Trump administration signaled on Thursday (May 29) it might back away from plans to immediately revoke Harvard University's ability to enroll international students and would instead pursue a lengthier administrative process.
According to a court filing, the US Department of Homeland Security sent Harvard a notice of intent on Wednesday to withdraw the school's certification under the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which allows Harvard to enroll non-US students.
Harvard has denied Trump administration charges of alleged bias against conservatives, fostering antisemitism on campus and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party. It has 30 days to respond to the notice.
The notice came ahead of a scheduled hearing before US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston over whether to extend a temporary order blocking US President Donald Trump's administration from revoking the Ivy League school's right to host international students.
Harvard has said losing that right would affect about one quarter of its student body and devastate the school.
Neither Harvard nor DHS immediately responded to requests for comment.
Harvard had argued that the revocation violated its free speech and due process rights under the US Constitution as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency actions.
Its lawyers said DHS regulations required providing at least 30 days to challenge the agency's allegations, and give Harvard an opportunity to pursue an administrative appeal.
The revocation announced on May 22 was an escalation of the Trump administration's attack on Harvard.
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university's lawyers argued the agency's action was part of an "unprecedented and retaliatory attack on academic freedom at Harvard", which is pursuing a separate lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to terminate nearly US$3 billion in federal research funding.
Harvard argues the Trump administration is retaliating against it for refusing to cede to its demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the "ideology" of its faculty and students.
The case before Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, was filed after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revoked the school's SEVP certification.
In announcing the decision, Noem, without providing evidence, accused the university of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party."
In a letter that day, she accused the school of refusing to comply with wide-ranging requests for information on its student visa holders, including about any activity they engaged in that was illegal or violent or that would subject them to discipline.
"As I explained to you in my April letter, it is a privilege to enroll foreign students, and it is also a privilege to employ aliens on campus," she said.
Harvard said the decision was "devastating" for the school and its student body. The university, the nation's oldest and wealthiest, enrolled nearly 6,800 international students in its current school year, about 27 per cent of its total enrollment.
The department's move would prevent Harvard from enrolling new international students and require existing ones to transfer to other schools or lose their legal status.
Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday that Harvard University should have a 15 per cent cap on the number of non-US students it admits. "Harvard has got to behave themselves," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
4 hours ago
- CNA
Google says it will appeal online search antitrust decision
Alphabet's Google on Saturday said it will appeal an antitrust decision under which a federal judge proposed less aggressive ways to restore online search competition than the 10-year regime suggested by antitrust enforcers "We will wait for the Court's opinion. And we still strongly believe the Court's original decision was wrong, and look forward to our eventual appeal," Google said in a post on X. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington heard closing arguments on Friday at a trial on proposals to address Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. In April, a federal judge said that Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, with the U.S. Department of Justice saying that Google should sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company's publisher ad server and its ad exchange. The DOJ and a coalition of states want Google to share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers to be the default search engine on new devices. Antitrust enforcers are concerned about how Google's search monopoly gives it an advantage in artificial intelligence products like Gemini and vice versa. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, said at the hearing that while generative AI is influencing how search looks, Google has addressed any concerns about competition in AI by no longer entering exclusive agreements with wireless carriers and smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics, leaving them free to load rival search and AI apps on new devices.
CNA
6 hours ago
- CNA
Somebody that I used to know: On the weird grief of colleague departures
This question has become part of my awkward welcome ritual for new hires: 'So ... are you a coffee person?' Day one usually begins at the cafe downstairs with a quick hello, a commemorative libation (coffee or otherwise), then a climb up the stairs to commence our journey as co-workers. Over the past decade of running my company, I've continued to personally onboard new workers. It's not that I can't trust someone else to do it. I just really enjoy it. I like showing them our 'designated crying area' (our pantry space) and explaining the curious phenomenon of the office bidet geyser. I like going through our culture deck, throwing in a few jokes to break the ice and seeing them decide how heartily they should laugh. It's orientation, yes, but also something more – a quiet hope that if you make them feel welcome and you remember their coffee order, they might stay a little longer. Then they leave. Sometimes after three years, sometimes three months. Sometimes on a good note, sometimes a strained one. And in that abrupt silence that follows, between offboarding checklists and looking at handover documents, I find myself wondering if any of these efforts were worth it. WON'T YOU STAY WITH ME? About a decade ago, the first person that I hired when I started the company decided to make a jump to a much bigger, more prestigious agency. It was a competitor but it paid her better and had a much more conducive structure for her career development. It made sense for her. We parted on good terms, but it was hard to maintain the same friendship once we no longer shared the day-to-day routines. Even seeing her career milestones pop up on social media triggered a small wave of disappointment – not at her, but at myself. It was insecurity and a bit of resentment all wrapped up in a forced double-tap of the 'like' button. We didn't speak for a long time. Only after a good five years had passed could we both approach the situation with some perspective and humour. Thankfully, we're now friendly again. This isn't a story about attrition rates or talent migration. It's about the emotional tax of investing in people who eventually walk away. No one tells you, when you first become a manager, that the job requires a strange kind of short-term memory. You pour time into someone, build a rhythm, start speaking in shared references and inside jokes – and then, poof, they're gone. Off to bigger things and better pay. The relationship seems to end abruptly there, apart from the occasional LinkedIn sightings. I know that's just the way the cookie crumbles. The workplace today is a revolving door of industry pivots, mental health breaks and career realignments. Everyone's chasing something – balance, purpose, remuneration, title and so on – and it's unlikely that staying in one place can offer everything. Still, why do I feel a small sting every time someone leaves? SOMEBODY THAT I USED TO KNOW I'll be honest. I still find it difficult not to take departures from the company personally. Not in a dramatic, weeping-in-the-toilet way, but in those smaller moments. When a photo of a past team outing pops up on social media, in a photo album or the memories in your head. Or when you retrieve an old presentation deck and you see the names tagged in the slides. Certainly not because they're wrong to go but maybe it's because, for a brief window of time, I had imagined a future where we'd keep building something together. This emotional dilemma isn't exclusive to managers and supervisors. The departure I've taken the hardest happened when I was still a junior executive, in the infancy of my career. At the time, I was part of a desk cluster with a senior who wasn't my direct boss, but who had become a de facto mentor. Christopher was soft-spoken, serious and a little stoic, but he always humoured my terrible puns. We'd often sneak off for 'planning sessions' at the canteen that had very little to do with planning. We talked about movies, music, family – the kind of conversations that anchor you during chaotic work days. One afternoon, Christopher told me that the following week would be his last with the company. He'd found a better opportunity elsewhere. In the 2002 Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs, there's a pivotal scene where Tony Leung, playing an undercover police officer, watches the only person who knows his true identity get killed. The camera lingers on his expression of shock and horror and this remains one of the strongest gut punches in cinematic history. On that day when Christopher told me the news, my expression would've made Tony's look mild at best. 'Oh. Congrats, Chris!' I managed to say. 'Happy for you.' Two weeks later at his cleaned-out desk, I shook his hand and said all the right things: 'Let's keep in touch. Don't be a stranger.' What I couldn't shake was the strange sense of grief and futility. What would be the point of keeping in touch if we no longer worked together? FRIENDS ARE FRIENDS … FOREVER? What is 'workplace culture'? We like to talk about it in terms of values and vision statements, but most of it comes down to the people. It is who you sit next to, the person who replies with a meme instead of a boring thumbs-up, the one who makes the 5pm slump bearable. So when they leave, it isn't just another email from the human resource department. It's a permanent glitch in your work day. Conventional business wisdom dictates that investing in people is never a waste, even when they might come and go – because people are the most valuable assets of any company. I've echoed those things. I even genuinely believe them. But there's another truth, too: that what isn't a waste can still sometimes feel like one regardless. It's only human of us to feel something, especially after we've poured hours into someone – coaching, giving feedback, having conversations over coffee and bubble tea – only to have them resign right when they finally started getting it. Maybe it is not quite bitterness but certainly, there is a sense of jadedness. The kind that makes you want to pull back with the next person, just a little. Don't get too attached. Don't ask about their weekend or their interests. Don't joke too much. Here's the catch: If you stop investing in your people earnestly and genuinely, you will slowly become the kind of manager you swore you'd never be. Transactional. Coldly efficient. Checked out. And ironically, that's exactly the kind of environment people want to leave. So I will keep trying, even when the farewell Slack message reads like a LinkedIn boilerplate. I will keep hoping that somewhere along the way, the time we spent together meant something. That, in between rushed deadlines and Monday check-ins, we managed to become more than just colleagues ticking boxes on a task list. Maybe that's the point – to make the workplace not just somewhere people pass through, but somewhere they felt seen, where they felt real connection, even if briefly. I love how Andy Bernard movingly puts it in the series finale of American sitcom The Office: "I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them." The real treasure, as they say, might just be the friends we made along the way.
CNA
12 hours ago
- CNA
Mahomes says he will not participate in LA28 flag football
Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes has ruled out playing flag football at the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics, saying he will leave representing the United States in the sport's Olympic debut to "the younger guys." National Football League teams approved a resolution last week allowing their players to compete in flag football at the LA Games. Mahomes, twice NFL Most Valuable Player and three-time Super Bowl MVP, will be 32 when the 2028 Games begin. Speaking during the off-season organized team activities this week, Mahomes told reporters, "I'll probably leave that to the younger guys. I'll be a little older by the time that comes around." "It's awesome. Honestly, just to be able to showcase the NFL to the whole world through flag football." The NFL has ramped up its promotion of flag football, a non-contact format of American football, since the International Olympic Committee approved it for the LA28 program in 2023, with an eye toward drawing more women into an arena long dominated by men. The league itself had long been on board with players competing in the Games, while multiple athletes, including Mahomes, said two years ago they wanted to play the sport at the LA Games. Six men's teams and six women's teams are set to compete in flag football at the LA Games, with 10 players per team competing in a five-on-five format.
