Kenyan student accepted to Harvard worried family's sacrifices will be wasted
A Kenyan man accepted to Harvard University says his grandmother sacrificed everything to get him to Cambridge. "She said, 'You know what? You need it all,'" Magaga Enos told WBZ. "So, she went back and sold her two pieces of land."
In addition to the land, she also sold cattle to help her grandson pursue his master's degree at the Graduate School of Education. "And she told me, 'I don't know what this means or how much this will take off the balance, but have this,'" he said.
According to Enos, "It was all she had. It's her whole entire world." And although it amounted to around $3,000, not nearly enough to cover his six-figure tuition costs, "To me, it's not about the amount," he said.
"A deep sacrifice"
"I took that as a deep sacrifice from somebody who raised me, and it means a lot to her for me to get that opportunity," Enos said.
He now fears his grandmother's sacrifice may have all been for nothing, as the Trump administration continuously moves to restrict Harvard's ability to admit international students.
The 33-year-old said he has spent the past decade educating young girls, "to love science and to access quality education."
The thought of his dream being taken away "is so scary," he said. "Mainly because of how it might impact someone like my grandma. She thinks that any empowerment I get means success to everyone around me - and she's right."
Enos has a plane ticket and was set to move to Cambridge on July 4. However, he tells WBZ he's unsure if he'll board his plane, as it's still unclear when, or if, he'll ever make it to school.
"It would make me happy if we were not viewed as just statistics or pawns in a war that we have no control over," he said.
As his future hangs in the balance, he's doing his best to remain positive with hopes that government and school officials remember one thing: "We are dreamers, educators, bridge builders, and we hope to be granted this opportunity to make a difference," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
36 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘We are not just fighting for Harvard': For alums, this year feels different
In the 45 years since graduating from Harvard University, Laura Hastings has never been to a reunion. 'I've always felt that Harvard didn't need me,' Hastings said. However, like many of her classmates, when she saw the escalating battle between her alma mater and the Trump administration, she realized this year was the moment for her to 'show up.' The alumni day had a record of 9,000 attendees this year, a speaker said. A sea of maroon Harvard regalia coated the Cambridge streets as some men walked around with tophats and suits, and others waved reunion flags. Shrieks bounced off the brick buildings as classmates saw each other and young children in oversized Harvard merch clung to their parents. Read more: Funding cuts, lawsuits, foreign students: The latest on Trump's war with Harvard University The event comes only a few hours after the institution amended one of its lawsuits against the federal government on Thursday evening and asked for a temporary restraining order. Those actions were in response to President Donald Trump's issuance of a proclamation this week declaring that the school's foreign students would not be allowed into the country. Harvard has been a leader in resisting — through multiple lawsuits — the Trump administration as it attempts to cut billions of dollars from the university in addition to research funding. In one of the cuts, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was due to 'continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination.' 'In the Trump Administration, discrimination will not be tolerated on campus. Federal funds must support institutions that protect all students,' the department said. Hastings said she has had some embarrassment about going to Harvard as an elite institution. 'Elite universities, by their very definition, suggest exclusion,' she said, adding that she had a privileged upbringing. While higher education can be the thing that can help people advance to higher-paying and more prestigious careers, the federal government has tapped into a segment of the population who feels excluded by higher education, said Hastings, who is a professor at Georgia State University. One Harvard alum who spoke with MassLive on Friday traveled across the United States border to come to the reunion, despite his fears of being let in — or out — of the country. MassLive isn't using his name because he isn't a citizen of the United States and fears retaliation from the federal government. 'As a non-citizen and non-[permanent resident] you have no procedural rights at the border, meaning that they could ask to see my phone, my messages, my WhatsApp history, anything that they would take that is politically not congruent with what they want they could use that as a basis to deny me entry,' he said. 'I was worried that that would happen. So I scraped my phone of messages that would indicate a political leaning that was contrary to what the administration would be putting out there,' he said. As Harvard fights against the federal government, alumni are doing the same. Members of Crimson Courage, a community of Harvard alumni whose mission is to stand up for academic freedom, urged alumni to wear stickers of support and sign on to a legal document, also known as an amicus brief, in support of Harvard's second lawsuit against the Trump administration focused on international students. 'It's just absolutely incredible. I've never seen this type of mobilization,' said Evelyn Kim, a Harvard alum and Crimson Courage organizer. Kim said the backing of Crimson Courage is helpful for Harvard to know that their community supports them. 'We are not just fighting for Harvard,' Kim said. 'We are fighting for every higher education institution's right to be able to pursue the research they want to do, teach what they want to teach, admit the students that they want to admit. This isn't just about Harvard, it's about all higher education,' she said. Crimson Courage is aiming to have other campuses create their own chapters to back their institutions in the face of cuts or other actions from the federal government. Lisa Paige, an alum and organizer with Crimson Courage, said the organization has around 300 volunteers and has continued to grow. Hastings, who handed out Crimson Courage stickers on Friday to alums, said that while there is overwhelming support, resistance from alums is also apparent. She said many people said they didn't want to talk about the Trump administration's actions against Harvard — instead wanting to enjoy their reunion. One alum who told her he stopped giving money to Harvard because it has become 'too liberal.' Much of what the Trump administration has critiqued about Harvard has focused on campus antisemitism, race discrimination and a lack of political diversity. All of the alums MassLive spoke with on Friday said they don't believe these explanations are why the federal government is going after Harvard. Hastings, for instance, said she thought Harvard leaned too conservative in its beliefs when she was a student on campus. And, as a Jew, she thinks the claim of antisemitism is ultimately being used as a 'scapegoat' for the administration to go after Harvard. The government going after universities is a 'red flag for a democracy' which could harm freedom of thought and speech, according to Olumide Adebo, a Harvard graduate school alum. At the same time, Adebo, along with many other alumni, has criticisms of how Harvard has reacted since the Trump administration shined a light on Harvard. One is the cancellation of affinity graduations — which was something he enjoyed when he graduated from Harvard. 'Whatever criticisms I can offer to Harvard are fairly similar to what I offer to our society in terms of how we embrace diversity and equity in general,' he said. Adebo pointed to the university not backing former president Claudine Gay, who stepped down in early 2024 after about six months on the job, and defending her against the attacks claiming that she had plagiarized scholarly work. 'That seems to me to be a very short leash for anybody in leadership. Frankly, regardless of the missteps. Especially since she was fully vetted before being hired for the role,' he said. Read more: What a monk, a librarian and a dentist have to do with Harvard's fight with Trump To the alum who is not a U.S. citizen, the debate about the future of higher education, funding between public and private higher education and research funding are all 'welcomed.' There are valid critiques about the 'historical injustices' of who is allowed into an institution like Harvard and who isn't — even if the university has been working to address those issues, the alum said. However, the efforts to dismantle Harvard and higher education by the federal government go beyond what is necessary into something that is dangerous, the alum said. As the senior grant manager at Mass General Brigham, a Harvard affiliate, Mary Anne Fox, said she has seen firsthand the attempts at dismantling her alma mater — and the consequences of that. It has been a 'shock' as the attacks against Harvard have emanated into research which won't just hurt the institution but the international research infrastructure, she said. She said she came today to show her support for the institution. 'Now I'm really proud to be from Harvard,' she said. 'I didn't know people hated Harvard so much in the country,' she said. Fox prominently wore a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by people in the Middle East that has taken on a greater symbol of resistance in the United States in support of Palestinians. She said she wore it on that day because many students at Harvard can't — and there is little the university can do against her in response. 'What are they going to do? Suck the degree back out of my head?' she said. Peter Coccoluto, joined by his wife, said he came on Friday to Harvard for his 70th reunion in part due to the actions taken toward the university. 'I feel we are being besieged by an ignorant man who also has the bad quality of seeking revenge on anyone who crosses his path,' Coccoluto said. 'I am here to support Harvard and to urge them to fight, fight, fight, because we fight not only for Harvard, but for all of the other free institutions of learning, higher learning,' he said. Casey Wenz stood outside the Harvard Yard on Friday morning with a finger brace holding up a wooden sign that read 'Harvard Thank You For Your Courage.' While she doesn't have an affiliation with the university, as a Cambridge resident, she said she wanted to show her gratitude to the university for 'standing up for themselves' and ultimately 'standing up for all of us.' She said she has friends who are international students and work at Harvard and that the federal government's actions against Harvard are hurting the country's economy. 'He's knee-capping innovation. And I think undoing that will take years — possibly decades,' she said. 'We might be losing a week or a month for every day that we lose in the research lab,' she said. What a monk, a librarian and a dentist have to do with Harvard's fight with Trump Judge blocks Trump admin from banning Harvard international students from entering US 'Singling out': Harvard president says Trump admin is retaliating against institution 'Government vendetta': Harvard fights back after Trump blocks its foreign students from US Funding cuts, lawsuits, foreign students: The latest on Trump's war with Harvard University Read the original article on MassLive.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday granted Harvard University's emergency request to block, for now, the Trump administration's effort to ban international students from its campus, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if enforced. The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs blocks the administration from immediately stripping Harvard of its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP — a program run by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs said in her order that Harvard has demonstrated evidence it "will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties," prompting her to temporarily block the SEVP revocation. Still, some see the order as a mere Band-Aid, forestalling a larger court fight between Harvard and the Trump administration — and one that Trump critics say could be unfairly weighted against the nation's oldest university. "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview discussing the Trump administration's actions. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. It is also targeting the university with investigations led by six separate federal agencies. Combined, these actions have created a wide degree of uncertainty at Harvard. The temporary restraining order handed down on Thursday night is also just that — temporary. Though the decision does block Trump from revoking Harvard's SEVP status, it's a near-term fix, designed to allow the merits of the case to be more fully heard. Meanwhile, the administration is almost certain to appeal the case to higher courts, which could be more inclined to side in favor of the administration. And that's just the procedural angle. Should Harvard lose its status for SEVP certification — a certification it has held for some 70 years — the thousands of international students currently enrolled at Harvard would have a very narrow window to either transfer to another U.S. university, or risk losing their student visas within 180 days, experts told Fox News. Some may opt not to take that chance, and transfer to a different school that's less likely to be targeted by the administration — even if it means sacrificing, for certainty, a certain level of prestige. Regardless of how the court rules, these actions create "a chilling effect" for international students at Harvard, Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, said in an interview. Students "who would otherwise be attending or applying to Harvard University [could be] less inclined to do so, or to make alternative plans for their education In the U.S.," Gavoor said. Even if the Trump administration loses on the merits of the case, "there's a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy," Gavoor said. Meanwhile, any financial fallout the school might see as a result is another matter entirely. Though the uncertainty yielded by Trump's fight against Harvard could prove damaging to the school's priority of maintaining a diverse international student body, or by offering financial aid to students via the federally operated Pell Grant, these actions alone would unlikely to prove financially devastating in the near-term, experts told Fox News. Harvard could simply opt to fill the slots once taken by international students with any number of eager, well-qualified U.S.-based applicants, David Feldman, a professor at William & Mary who focuses on economic issues and higher education, said in an interview. Harvard is one of just a handful of American universities that has a "need-blind" admissions policy for domestic and international students — that is, they do not take into consideration a student's financial need or the aid required in weighing a potential applicant. But because international students in the U.S. typically require more aid than domestic students, replacing their slots with domestic students, in the near-term, would likely have little noticeable impact on the revenue it receives for tuition, fees and housing, he said. "This is all about Harvard, choosing the best group of students possible," Feldman said in an interview. If the administration successfully revokes their SEVP certification, this would effectively just be "constraining them to choose the second-best group," he said. "Harvard could dump the entire 1,500-person entering class, just dump it completely, and look at the next 1,500 [applicants]," Feldman said. "And by all measurables that you and I would look at, it would look just as good." Unlike public schools, which are subject to the vagaries of state budgets, private universities like Harvard often have margins built into their budgets in the form of seed money that allows them to allocate more money towards things they've identified as goals for the year or years ahead. This allows them to operate with more stability as a result — and inoculates them to a larger degree from the administration's financial hits. "Uncertainty is bad for them," Feldman acknowledged. But at the end of the day, he said, "these institutions have the capacity to resist." "They would rather not — they would rather this whole thing go away," Feldman said. But the big takeaway, in his view, is that Harvard "is not defenseless."
