Your Cart is Empty
Liam Knox
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: The U.S. State Department is rolling out sweeping new rules for vetting student visa applicants using their social media presence, according to Politico. The new process will include screening for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States,” according to an internal State Department cable.
Department officials will also look for posts that signal “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to national security” and “support for antisemitic harassment or violence,” specifically citing support for Hamas—a charge commonly levied against student protesters advocating for Palestinian rights—as grounds for rejection. The cable also directs officials to cull applicants who “demonstrate a history of political activism.”
Jocelyn Kaiser
Science
Excerpt: Talk about policy whiplash. This morning, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lifted a pause on funding to Columbia University, according to an internal memo viewed by Science. A few hours later, the agency refroze money to the school.
Earlier today in an email Science saw and was first described on Bluesky by Nature, NIH told its program officers money can flow again to Columbia. Michelle Bulls, director of the agency’s Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, around 9 a.m. wrote to NIH grants staff: “Great news, we have been told that we can resume funding awards to Columbia (funding pause has been lifted).” But less than 6 hours later, some grants staff were informed that Columbia awards were back on hold.
Emily Chamlee-Wright
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: American higher education is on its back foot. As part of the Trump administration’s broader project of regime consolidation, universities are facing new and shockingly direct threats to their independence and academic freedom. And in the past few months, we’ve seen that reality start to sink in.
Sometimes there is no more compromise to be had and the only way to stand on principle is to forthrightly say no. In the process, the academic community can reclaim fundamental values that had been eroding well before the present crisis.
Matan H. Josephy and Laurel M. Shugart
Harvard Crimson
Excerpt: A federal judge extended her halt on Donald Trump’s entry ban on holders of Harvard-sponsored visas until next Monday at a hearing where lawyers for Harvard and the federal government sparred over whether the ban is constitutional.
The extension of the temporary restraining order will keep incoming international students’ authorization to enter the U.S. in place until U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs decides whether to cement the pause in a preliminary injunction. Burroughs said at Monday’s hearing that she will issue an opinion within a week.
Jacob Sullum
Reason Magazine
Excerpt: Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who was the first target of President Donald Trump's crusade against foreign students he calls "terrorist sympathizers," could soon be released from custody thanks to a preliminary injunction that a federal judge in New Jersey granted this week. The reasoning behind that injunction underlines the chilling impact of Trump's attempt to treat speech he does not like as a deportable offense.
[U.S. District Judge Michael] Farbiarz stayed his injunction until 9:30 this morning to allow for a government appeal of his decision. That deadline came and went without an appeal. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official nevertheless told Khalil's lawyers "the government has no immediate plans to release him," The New York Times reports.
Matthew W. Finkin
Chronicle of Higher Education
Excerpt: An article on threats to academic freedom on college campuses in last week’s New York Times Magazine touched on a running debate between the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The former has long been the expositor of the meaning of academic freedom; the latter is active in litigating free-speech cases. The quarrel between the two organizations raises some hard questions about the AAUP’s current role.
