5 ms·

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1372, the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) program requires schools to report data on international students including w

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1372, the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) program requires schools to report data on international students including what DHS has been asking for. Harvard may argue that DHS’s request was overly broad, lacked due process, or sought information beyond what the law permits. 8 CFR § 214.3(g) and § 214.4(b), which require schools to maintain and furnish records “as required by the Service,” including disciplinary actions and other conduct relevant to maintaining status. 8 CFR § 214.3(l)(2)(iii) allows for withdrawal of certification if a school fails to “provide requested documentation” to DHS. Not to mention other overly broad immigration laws But given the laws on the books, DHS has broad authority to take this action. Not arguing one way or the other just laying out the facts. This could have happened under the prior administration if the law was applied

throwawaymaths 1y ago
yep. the laws have been written to be broad... my best guess would be the best legal argument Harvard could claim would be that it construes the existing law as a bill of attainder (a law targetted at an individual or group of individuals called out by person -- versus called out by some category of actions -- that is judged without trial)
selfselfgo 1y ago
[dead]
hackyhacky 1y ago
[flagged]
dmvdoug 1y ago
The actual statute provides the categories of information schools must provide about their students. It’s not a “whatever we happen to ask for” list. See 8 U.S.C. § 1372. Needless to say, “protest activity” is not included.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  We do not know yet what Harvard did and did not respond to. All we have is their word. If they didn’t provide what was required after DHS demanded what was legally required to be provided then DHS is on solid legal ground. I can’t really defend not providing something that isn’t called out as part of the law though
  - dmvdoug 1y ago
    No, we gave the SEVIS revocation letter demanding a handful of categories of information, one of which is “protest activity.” And they are already required under the statute to provide one category of information requested: “any disciplinary action taken by the institution against the alien as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime or, in the case of a participant in a designated exchange visitor program, any change in the alien’s participation as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime.” My main point, though, was this: (1) the information required to maintain SEVIS program is statutorily defined, so the government doesn’t get to arbitrarily expand that and then punish a school for noncompliance; and (2) we know of at least one category requested information that they are not allowed to ask for and that implicates nothing other than the exercise of a student’s First Amendment rights.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      My point is we don’t know if they actually provided all the info that is statutorily required and/or the government is saying within those statutory rules you still didn’t provide it so by law it’s revoked (for now). We only have statements from both sides. Seeing as it’s private most likely won’t see it via FOIA
      - dmvdoug 1y ago
        Nah, this one is going to federal court for sure. It’ll all come out. But part of the rules are also that schools must provide the relevant information within 30 days of the start of an alien’s academic term. There’s a whole system set up to handle this. The system is not, government, go ask for this set of information whenever you feel like it and if the school doesn’t hop to it immediately, you may suspend. It says that if a school does not provide the information within the relevant period before the term starts, it shall be suspended. There is no discretionary wiggle room for the government to be like, well, I don’t think you’re giving me enough, or you’re not being cooperative enough.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Could Harvard be eligible for damages?
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  Given that Harvard’s own report supports this administration’s findings I am doubtful. Harvard’s own ASAIB report proved there is a prevalence of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias which includes verbal harassment, discriminatory comments hostile environments in academic settings pertaining to Israel and the Middle East, and exclusion of Jewish students from certain campus activities and organizations due to their perceived political affiliations Link https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Harvard-ASAIB-Report-4.29.25.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Har...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Not sure how that’s relevant to pulling their foreign student credentials.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      Point is their only option is to seek injunctive relief
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > their only option is to seek injunctive relief …why? Why does an internal Harvard report obviate damages for an unrelated illegal executive action? I’m not arguing they have that claim. I’m just fairly certain this report doesn’t have anything to do with it.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        I will explain. Under 8 CFR § 214.3(a)(3) and § 214.4(a)(2)(ii), schools are required to maintain accurate records and comply with all SEVP-related responsibilities, which include ensuring that F-1 students are not engaged in activities that violate status or federal law. If DHS believes that international students were involved in threatening, discriminatory, or unlawful activity and the school either failed to document, disclose, or respond appropriately, that’s a direct compliance issue. Harvard’s own ASAIB report admits that antisemitic conduct occurred-including exclusion of Jewish students, verbal harassment, and bias in classroom settings. If any of that involved foreign students-and Harvard didn’t report it or take disciplinary action-DHS can reasonably infer noncompliance with 214.3(g)(1) (required records) and failure to enforce visa conditions. In fact, the ASAIB report might be evidence that Harvard knew about the issues and didn’t fully cooperate, justifying DHS’s conclusion that the university wasn’t acting in good faith.

throwawaymaths 1y ago

yep. the laws have been written to be broad... my best guess would be the best legal argument Harvard could claim would be that it construes the existing law as a bill of attainder (a law targetted at an individual or group of individuals called out by person -- versus called out by some category of actions -- that is judged without trial)

selfselfgo 1y ago

[dead]

hackyhacky 1y ago

[flagged]

dmvdoug 1y ago

The actual statute provides the categories of information schools must provide about their students. It’s not a “whatever we happen to ask for” list. See 8 U.S.C. § 1372. Needless to say, “protest activity” is not included.

firesteelrain 1y ago
We do not know yet what Harvard did and did not respond to. All we have is their word. If they didn’t provide what was required after DHS demanded what was legally required to be provided then DHS is on solid legal ground. I can’t really defend not providing something that isn’t called out as part of the law though
- dmvdoug 1y ago
  No, we gave the SEVIS revocation letter demanding a handful of categories of information, one of which is “protest activity.” And they are already required under the statute to provide one category of information requested: “any disciplinary action taken by the institution against the alien as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime or, in the case of a participant in a designated exchange visitor program, any change in the alien’s participation as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime.” My main point, though, was this: (1) the information required to maintain SEVIS program is statutorily defined, so the government doesn’t get to arbitrarily expand that and then punish a school for noncompliance; and (2) we know of at least one category requested information that they are not allowed to ask for and that implicates nothing other than the exercise of a student’s First Amendment rights.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    My point is we don’t know if they actually provided all the info that is statutorily required and/or the government is saying within those statutory rules you still didn’t provide it so by law it’s revoked (for now). We only have statements from both sides. Seeing as it’s private most likely won’t see it via FOIA
    - dmvdoug 1y ago
      Nah, this one is going to federal court for sure. It’ll all come out. But part of the rules are also that schools must provide the relevant information within 30 days of the start of an alien’s academic term. There’s a whole system set up to handle this. The system is not, government, go ask for this set of information whenever you feel like it and if the school doesn’t hop to it immediately, you may suspend. It says that if a school does not provide the information within the relevant period before the term starts, it shall be suspended. There is no discretionary wiggle room for the government to be like, well, I don’t think you’re giving me enough, or you’re not being cooperative enough.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

Could Harvard be eligible for damages?

firesteelrain 1y ago
Given that Harvard’s own report supports this administration’s findings I am doubtful. Harvard’s own ASAIB report proved there is a prevalence of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias which includes verbal harassment, discriminatory comments hostile environments in academic settings pertaining to Israel and the Middle East, and exclusion of Jewish students from certain campus activities and organizations due to their perceived political affiliations Link https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Harvard-ASAIB-Report-4.29.25.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Har...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Not sure how that’s relevant to pulling their foreign student credentials.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Point is their only option is to seek injunctive relief
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > their only option is to seek injunctive relief …why? Why does an internal Harvard report obviate damages for an unrelated illegal executive action? I’m not arguing they have that claim. I’m just fairly certain this report doesn’t have anything to do with it.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        I will explain. Under 8 CFR § 214.3(a)(3) and § 214.4(a)(2)(ii), schools are required to maintain accurate records and comply with all SEVP-related responsibilities, which include ensuring that F-1 students are not engaged in activities that violate status or federal law. If DHS believes that international students were involved in threatening, discriminatory, or unlawful activity and the school either failed to document, disclose, or respond appropriately, that’s a direct compliance issue. Harvard’s own ASAIB report admits that antisemitic conduct occurred-including exclusion of Jewish students, verbal harassment, and bias in classroom settings. If any of that involved foreign students-and Harvard didn’t report it or take disciplinary action-DHS can reasonably infer noncompliance with 214.3(g)(1) (required records) and failure to enforce visa conditions. In fact, the ASAIB report might be evidence that Harvard knew about the issues and didn’t fully cooperate, justifying DHS’s conclusion that the university wasn’t acting in good faith.