On Thursday, February 16, President Trump promised that a revised Executive Order will be issued within the week to replace the earlier EO that resulted in outcries from higher education groups and leaders. He indicated that the new EO will "be very much tailored to the, what I consider to be a very bad (court) decision, but we can tailor the order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways more" than the original sought to accomplish. President Trump issued a revised order on March 6. Those in higher education viewed the "newly revised entry ban as an improvement from the original but still highly problematic for international educational exchange and research collaborations." International students and scholars who already have visas are exempt from the new Executive Order but future enrollment projections are already declining with the perception that internationals are not welcome in the U.S.A. Background and responses to the original EO follow.
"The immediate implementation of the Executive Order by U.S.A. President Trump to bar "immigrants and nonimmigrant visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. has had immediate effects on scholars and students. More than 17,000 students in the U.S. come from the seven countries affected by the immediate 90-day entry ban: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen," wrote Elizabeth Redden for Inside Higher Education.
A group of 48 university presidents and chancellors, including all of the top-level Ivy League, sent a letter of protest to President Trump. The letter included reference to the U.S.A. as a country that "has attracted talented people to our shores and inspired people around the globe," a reputation now stained by President Trump's actions. Many other leaders in U.S.A. higher education institutions and organizations issued statements and faculty at Clemson University staged a hunger strike to press their president into more pointed condemnation. Esther D. Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO of the National Association of Foreign Student Advisors (NAFSA) said "The latest executive order, egregious enough in its aim to suspend the refugee program and to enact a blanket ban on visa approvals from these seven nations and Syrian refugees fleeing violence, has also caused enormous collateral damage in its implementation. Universities and colleges have already begun reporting cases of students and scholars stranded after traveling for reasons including study abroad, attending conferences and visiting sick or dying family members."
The Trump administration said that the Executive Order rolled out with few hitches but students, faculty and institution leaders expressed otherwise. Evidence gathered on graduate school applications collected before the 2016 Presidential elections indicated that international student interest had already leveled off; fears mounted that President Trump's election, his isolationist inclination, and Executive Order would send a message that international students were not welcome in the U.S.A., causing further decline. With international students' worries rising, Robert Quinn of Scholars at Risk encouraged higher education leaders to work harder to protect the campus environment by continuing to serve international students well, telling the truth about the vetting that is already in place, and by continuing campus dialogue about internationalization and inclusivity.
The irrelevance of official passport designation was one of the issues of concerning because government officials failed to clarify their stance. Homeland Security stated "that dual nationals who are citizens of a non banned country can enter, with the caveat that they will be treated according to the country whose passport they represent." Such a statement was anything but clear and those from banned countries (this is Homeland Security language) were probably best served not to travel. The "Iranian Next Door" FACEBOOK page was initiated for Iranians in the U.S.A. to share their stories; Ali Rostami, a Ph.D. student at Rutgers posted, "I spent last four years of my life to help developing driving safety systems for American people to get hurt less and American companies to make more profit. Frankly, I think if they ever say we don't want you (with continuing the ban), I'd simply say goodbye... I'm confident that I'll be fine finding a highly paid job in Europe."
The impact on those with passports from the targeted countries, or those who traveled through or associated with those from the seven Muslim-majority countries, wasn't higher education leaders' only concern. The Executive Order had the potential to exacerbate tensions associated with diversity initiatives on campuses and be a catalyst for hostile environment conditions that would negatively impact international students already in the U.S.A. or deter others who would otherwise consider studying in the U.S.A. In the face of potentially contentious conditions on campus, Yolanda T. Moses urged educators to; support undocumented students, protect protestors of all persuasions, enforce policies and act to prevent sexual assault, and reinforce global learning and engagement (i.e. student abroad, international student programs, curriculum projects). Others advocated the #WeAreInternational movement and official statements to send a clear message about supporting international students, scholars, and programs.
Some of those in U.S.A government positions took issue with the Executive Order. International shock and opposition were also voiced. As the controversy grew, educational associations began to look at pulling conferences from the U.S.A. that involve international audiences. Some international visitors who wanted to attend academic conferences have chosen not to bother and in other cases were threatened with detention and deportation. Pulling conferences in the U.S.A. would result in loss of revenue to cities and venues as well as isolation of domestic scholars from the broader international academic world.
Challenges to the Executive Order were successful in postponing the bans on refugee and visitor visas, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision to sustain the restraining order. While the stay offered, and continues to offer, a window of opportunity for some, it has continued to create fear and confusion for many. The negative impact on higher education was noted in Judge Robart's initial stay and was reinforced by the appeal decision. The "damaging effects" of the Executive Order became a cornerstone of the amicus brief filed by the state attorney general of New York on behalf of 17 elite U.S. universities that asserted, "The uncertainty generated by the order and its implementation is already having negative impacts well beyond persons from the seven affected countries. People from all over the world are understandably anxious about having their visas prematurely canceled through no fault of their own."
Analysis by the Washington Post and the advocacy of many educators admonish that words matter, citing candidate Trump's own words to indicate that the Executive Order is part of a long series of his proclamations calling for a "Muslim-ban." The breadth and implications of previous statements renders any defense, or subsequent attempts to propose an alternative Executive Order, immediately suspect. A revised Executive Order (this time with only 6 Muslim-majority countries on the list) was to have been implemented on March 16, 2017. It was again blocked, this time by Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii. A judge in Maryland followed Judge Watson's ruling. The jurists' opinions in both cases referenced campaign and post-election comments by Trump and his key advisors. Yes, words do matter, as many are increasingly recognizing. Indeed, as the Trump administration threatens to go all the way to the Supreme Court to clear the way for its Executive Order, a new day of juris prudence may be on the horizon; the intent versus the letter of the law is likely to be central to the dispute.
Beyond President Trump's words, the words of those who oppose the Executive Order are important as well. President of Robert Williams University, David Farish, encouraged college and university presidents to reclaim a middle ground as they address political issues so that students learn by seeing civil discourse modeled in their institutions. Farrah Assiraj, a former undocumented immigrant and founder of Peregrinum, provided tips on how teachers can talk about the Executive Order, the idea of a Muslim ban.
"The immediate implementation of the Executive Order by U.S.A. President Trump to bar "immigrants and nonimmigrant visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. has had immediate effects on scholars and students. More than 17,000 students in the U.S. come from the seven countries affected by the immediate 90-day entry ban: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen," wrote Elizabeth Redden for Inside Higher Education.
A group of 48 university presidents and chancellors, including all of the top-level Ivy League, sent a letter of protest to President Trump. The letter included reference to the U.S.A. as a country that "has attracted talented people to our shores and inspired people around the globe," a reputation now stained by President Trump's actions. Many other leaders in U.S.A. higher education institutions and organizations issued statements and faculty at Clemson University staged a hunger strike to press their president into more pointed condemnation. Esther D. Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO of the National Association of Foreign Student Advisors (NAFSA) said "The latest executive order, egregious enough in its aim to suspend the refugee program and to enact a blanket ban on visa approvals from these seven nations and Syrian refugees fleeing violence, has also caused enormous collateral damage in its implementation. Universities and colleges have already begun reporting cases of students and scholars stranded after traveling for reasons including study abroad, attending conferences and visiting sick or dying family members."
The Trump administration said that the Executive Order rolled out with few hitches but students, faculty and institution leaders expressed otherwise. Evidence gathered on graduate school applications collected before the 2016 Presidential elections indicated that international student interest had already leveled off; fears mounted that President Trump's election, his isolationist inclination, and Executive Order would send a message that international students were not welcome in the U.S.A., causing further decline. With international students' worries rising, Robert Quinn of Scholars at Risk encouraged higher education leaders to work harder to protect the campus environment by continuing to serve international students well, telling the truth about the vetting that is already in place, and by continuing campus dialogue about internationalization and inclusivity.
The irrelevance of official passport designation was one of the issues of concerning because government officials failed to clarify their stance. Homeland Security stated "that dual nationals who are citizens of a non banned country can enter, with the caveat that they will be treated according to the country whose passport they represent." Such a statement was anything but clear and those from banned countries (this is Homeland Security language) were probably best served not to travel. The "Iranian Next Door" FACEBOOK page was initiated for Iranians in the U.S.A. to share their stories; Ali Rostami, a Ph.D. student at Rutgers posted, "I spent last four years of my life to help developing driving safety systems for American people to get hurt less and American companies to make more profit. Frankly, I think if they ever say we don't want you (with continuing the ban), I'd simply say goodbye... I'm confident that I'll be fine finding a highly paid job in Europe."
The impact on those with passports from the targeted countries, or those who traveled through or associated with those from the seven Muslim-majority countries, wasn't higher education leaders' only concern. The Executive Order had the potential to exacerbate tensions associated with diversity initiatives on campuses and be a catalyst for hostile environment conditions that would negatively impact international students already in the U.S.A. or deter others who would otherwise consider studying in the U.S.A. In the face of potentially contentious conditions on campus, Yolanda T. Moses urged educators to; support undocumented students, protect protestors of all persuasions, enforce policies and act to prevent sexual assault, and reinforce global learning and engagement (i.e. student abroad, international student programs, curriculum projects). Others advocated the #WeAreInternational movement and official statements to send a clear message about supporting international students, scholars, and programs.
Some of those in U.S.A government positions took issue with the Executive Order. International shock and opposition were also voiced. As the controversy grew, educational associations began to look at pulling conferences from the U.S.A. that involve international audiences. Some international visitors who wanted to attend academic conferences have chosen not to bother and in other cases were threatened with detention and deportation. Pulling conferences in the U.S.A. would result in loss of revenue to cities and venues as well as isolation of domestic scholars from the broader international academic world.
Challenges to the Executive Order were successful in postponing the bans on refugee and visitor visas, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision to sustain the restraining order. While the stay offered, and continues to offer, a window of opportunity for some, it has continued to create fear and confusion for many. The negative impact on higher education was noted in Judge Robart's initial stay and was reinforced by the appeal decision. The "damaging effects" of the Executive Order became a cornerstone of the amicus brief filed by the state attorney general of New York on behalf of 17 elite U.S. universities that asserted, "The uncertainty generated by the order and its implementation is already having negative impacts well beyond persons from the seven affected countries. People from all over the world are understandably anxious about having their visas prematurely canceled through no fault of their own."
Analysis by the Washington Post and the advocacy of many educators admonish that words matter, citing candidate Trump's own words to indicate that the Executive Order is part of a long series of his proclamations calling for a "Muslim-ban." The breadth and implications of previous statements renders any defense, or subsequent attempts to propose an alternative Executive Order, immediately suspect. A revised Executive Order (this time with only 6 Muslim-majority countries on the list) was to have been implemented on March 16, 2017. It was again blocked, this time by Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii. A judge in Maryland followed Judge Watson's ruling. The jurists' opinions in both cases referenced campaign and post-election comments by Trump and his key advisors. Yes, words do matter, as many are increasingly recognizing. Indeed, as the Trump administration threatens to go all the way to the Supreme Court to clear the way for its Executive Order, a new day of juris prudence may be on the horizon; the intent versus the letter of the law is likely to be central to the dispute.
Beyond President Trump's words, the words of those who oppose the Executive Order are important as well. President of Robert Williams University, David Farish, encouraged college and university presidents to reclaim a middle ground as they address political issues so that students learn by seeing civil discourse modeled in their institutions. Farrah Assiraj, a former undocumented immigrant and founder of Peregrinum, provided tips on how teachers can talk about the Executive Order, the idea of a Muslim ban.
