5 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but how is it Harvard and MIT had standing in court for this case?

by mariodiana 6y ago

amerine 6y ago
Why wouldn’t they? Your question doesn’t make sense to me
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  You can't just sue because you are displeased with something - you need to have suffered, or will suffer direct harm from the thing(this is called locus standi). I'm guessing OP is saying that Harvard/MIT would not be harmed from this, only the students would be harmed(so they would need to be the ones to sue, not the college). It kind of makes sense - if everything is online courses, it doesn't matter to Harvard whether the students are at an apartment in Cambridge St or in the middle of the Mongolian steppe, as long as you have internet access. On the other hand, if students are deciding to attend some other university(say, one in their home country) and Harvard can show that harms them, then they would have standing
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - paxys 6y ago
    > It kind of makes sense - if everything is online courses, it doesn't matter to Harvard whether the students are at an apartment in Cambridge St or in the middle of the Mongolian steppe, as long as you have internet access. It makes a massive difference. 1. Students need good internet access, which a lot of them don't have in third world countries. 2. Students can't be expected to attend lectures and participate in class when they are in an opposite timezone (i.e. all of India and China). It's a pretty easy decision for all of these students to just skip a semester rather than pay ridiculous tuition and not even be allowed to stay on campus, hence causing problems for the university.
  - afarrell 6y ago
    Making a company's employees (grad students) suddenly move continents from a place they'd been living for 3 years is a pretty big harm.
wittyreference 6y ago
They are reliant on these students for income. They are directly harmed by the policy. Therefore, standing?
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
They sued partially on behalf of their students, and they also stood to lose a lot of tuition money themselves.
aspaceman 6y ago
IAANAL but I think since they were demonstrably harmed by the policy, they can file suit against it.
charonn0 6y ago
> 19. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this case. Defendants’ actions will cause an imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk to Plaintiffs’ ability to achieve their educational missions unless halted by this Court. > 20.Plaintiffs also have standing to assert claims on behalf of their F-1 visa-holding students, who face the imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk of harm to themselves, their families, their educations, their short-term and long-term health, and their future education and employment prospects if Defendants’ actions are not halted by this Court. [0]: https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_filing.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_fil...
gnulinux 6y ago
Others gave you good answers but also consider this. There are thousands of PhD students who create value for these universities. They not only do research, help research being made, they also teach others. Kicking all these people out of US due to whims of ICE harms universities' financial interest as well. Universities are not making their education remote because they choose to do so. They're doing precisely to protect students and faculty. It's capricious for ICE to see this and conclude "if you do that then I'll kick all your students out of this country". Universities invest in PhD students, they're part of faculty.
- gwright 6y ago
  FWIW, it is helpful to understand that this isn't ICE making policy randomly but in fact just enforcing the regulations surrounding student visas. The existing regulations were relaxed in March but the underlying regulatory idea is that you don't need a visa for online education and online education is not sufficient for a visa to be issued. I tend to think that it was premature to rescind the temporary waiving of the oversight regulations, but that isn't the same thing as saying the underlying regulations don't have a rationale basis.
  - gnulinux 6y ago
    (AINAL) No I don't think you're correct, which is what I (and others) were trying to explain. Which is also why MIT and Harvard (and many other universities) sued ICE. Here, copy paste from another comment: > 19. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this case. Defendants’ actions will cause an imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk to Plaintiffs’ ability to achieve their educational missions unless halted by this Court. > 20.Plaintiffs also have standing to assert claims on behalf of their F-1 visa-holding students, who face the imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk of harm to themselves, their families, their educations, their short-term and long-term health, and their future education and employment prospects if Defendants’ actions are not halted by this Court. [0]: https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_filing.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_fil... What you're missing is universities are making their classes online not because they're offering online education, but because they're forced to do so in order to protect students and faculty (including F1 students) from a pandemic. F1 visa specifically gives students right to protect themselves from such risks. If universities switched to remote education e.g. to cut cost or to experiment with online education methods, then you'd be right. But the argument here is that universities do this because students and faculty face irreparable damage or death, and therefore there is no basis to deport to F1 students.

I'm not a lawyer, but how is it Harvard and MIT had standing in court for this case?

amerine 6y ago

Why wouldn’t they? Your question doesn’t make sense to me

oh_sigh 6y ago
You can't just sue because you are displeased with something - you need to have suffered, or will suffer direct harm from the thing(this is called locus standi). I'm guessing OP is saying that Harvard/MIT would not be harmed from this, only the students would be harmed(so they would need to be the ones to sue, not the college). It kind of makes sense - if everything is online courses, it doesn't matter to Harvard whether the students are at an apartment in Cambridge St or in the middle of the Mongolian steppe, as long as you have internet access. On the other hand, if students are deciding to attend some other university(say, one in their home country) and Harvard can show that harms them, then they would have standing
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- paxys 6y ago
  > It kind of makes sense - if everything is online courses, it doesn't matter to Harvard whether the students are at an apartment in Cambridge St or in the middle of the Mongolian steppe, as long as you have internet access. It makes a massive difference. 1. Students need good internet access, which a lot of them don't have in third world countries. 2. Students can't be expected to attend lectures and participate in class when they are in an opposite timezone (i.e. all of India and China). It's a pretty easy decision for all of these students to just skip a semester rather than pay ridiculous tuition and not even be allowed to stay on campus, hence causing problems for the university.
- afarrell 6y ago
  Making a company's employees (grad students) suddenly move continents from a place they'd been living for 3 years is a pretty big harm.

wittyreference 6y ago

They are reliant on these students for income. They are directly harmed by the policy. Therefore, standing?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

They sued partially on behalf of their students, and they also stood to lose a lot of tuition money themselves.

aspaceman 6y ago

IAANAL but I think since they were demonstrably harmed by the policy, they can file suit against it.

charonn0 6y ago

> 19. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this case. Defendants’ actions will cause an imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk to Plaintiffs’ ability to achieve their educational missions unless halted by this Court. > 20.Plaintiffs also have standing to assert claims on behalf of their F-1 visa-holding students, who face the imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk of harm to themselves, their families, their educations, their short-term and long-term health, and their future education and employment prospects if Defendants’ actions are not halted by this Court. [0]: https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_filing.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_fil...

gnulinux 6y ago

Others gave you good answers but also consider this. There are thousands of PhD students who create value for these universities. They not only do research, help research being made, they also teach others. Kicking all these people out of US due to whims of ICE harms universities' financial interest as well. Universities are not making their education remote because they choose to do so. They're doing precisely to protect students and faculty. It's capricious for ICE to see this and conclude "if you do that then I'll kick all your students out of this country". Universities invest in PhD students, they're part of faculty.

gwright 6y ago
FWIW, it is helpful to understand that this isn't ICE making policy randomly but in fact just enforcing the regulations surrounding student visas. The existing regulations were relaxed in March but the underlying regulatory idea is that you don't need a visa for online education and online education is not sufficient for a visa to be issued. I tend to think that it was premature to rescind the temporary waiving of the oversight regulations, but that isn't the same thing as saying the underlying regulations don't have a rationale basis.
- gnulinux 6y ago
  (AINAL) No I don't think you're correct, which is what I (and others) were trying to explain. Which is also why MIT and Harvard (and many other universities) sued ICE. Here, copy paste from another comment: > 19. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this case. Defendants’ actions will cause an imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk to Plaintiffs’ ability to achieve their educational missions unless halted by this Court. > 20.Plaintiffs also have standing to assert claims on behalf of their F-1 visa-holding students, who face the imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk of harm to themselves, their families, their educations, their short-term and long-term health, and their future education and employment prospects if Defendants’ actions are not halted by this Court. [0]: https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_filing.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_fil... What you're missing is universities are making their classes online not because they're offering online education, but because they're forced to do so in order to protect students and faculty (including F1 students) from a pandemic. F1 visa specifically gives students right to protect themselves from such risks. If universities switched to remote education e.g. to cut cost or to experiment with online education methods, then you'd be right. But the argument here is that universities do this because students and faculty face irreparable damage or death, and therefore there is no basis to deport to F1 students.