International students may need to leave US if their universities transition to online-only learning

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
26 replies · 5K views
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion

Something university administrators should consider when making these decisions.
 
atyy said:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/...llege-students-ice-online-learning/index.html
International students may need to leave US if their universities transition to online-only learning

I just read about this new DHS rule, obviously it's causing a considerable ruckus (primarily) among students. One potential loophole- hybrid programs are acceptable since they are not 100% online.

But yeah- if colleges close due to a resurgence, all those students would have to vacate the country.

I expect a legal challenge to be filed within a few hours.
 
Andy Resnick said:
I expect a legal challenge to be filed within a few hours.

On what basis? Courts aren't supposed to rule on whether a policy is good or bad. I also think university administrators will have a bit of an uphill battle with what appears to be their argument: "Let them stay in the country - just keep them off my campus".
 
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Vanadium 50 said:
On what basis? Courts aren't supposed to rule on whether a policy is good or bad. I also think university administrators will have a bit of an uphill battle with what appears to be their argument: "Let them stay in the country - just keep them off my campus".

One reason is that the rule is unclear: AFAIK, the rule is, if a program is 100% online, those foreign students enrolled in the program are not permitted in the US.

What if, out of 30 courses that construe a program, 29 are 100% remote but 1 is hybrid. Is the foreign student permitted to attend or not? Does it matter if the student is enrolled in that single hybrid class or not?

What if a student is full-time enrolled 100% remote but some of those courses are non-program (gen-ed requirements, for example), what does that mean?

In other ways the rule puts undue burdens on students and institutions: If a program starts off hybrid but later in the semester the institution decides to transition to 100% remote, why do those foreign students then have to immediate leave the country? Who will force them to leave?

I'm sure there are other problems with this clearly xenophobic policy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Andy Resnick said:
One reason is that the rule is unclear: AFAIK, the rule is, if a program is 100% online, those foreign students enrolled in the program are not permitted in the US.

That's not very unclear. :wink:

Andy Resnick said:
What if, out of 30 courses that construe a program, 29 are 100% remote but 1 is hybrid. Is the foreign student permitted to attend or not? Does it matter if the student is enrolled in that single hybrid class or not?

The student is normally allowed one remote class or three credit hours. If the school is operating normally, this applies. If the school has a hybrid model, the student is allowed to remain provided they are taking at least one in person course and are at least making minimal progress towards a degree.

To my mind, that's not very unclear either.

I think the legal argument "it's unclear" won't get very far - the government can simply say "Fine. All these exceptions make things unclear. No exceptions, then." If you want a looser policy, you'll need a different argument. I am not a lawyer, though.
 
The heart of their argument seems to be that it violates the administrative procedure act (APA). From the MIT/Harvard filing:

The APA requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion ... or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Agency action that is not the product of reasoned decisionmaking is arbitrary and capricious. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). An agency that “entirely failto consider an important aspect of the problem” before it has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Id.; see also Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., No. 18-587, 2020 WL 3271746, at *13 (U.S. June 18, 2020).

I have no legal training or knowledge, so have no idea how valid the argument is or how successful these kinds of arguments are. I do suspect that Harvard and MIT have access to competent legal representation, though.

jason
 
The history is that requirements were in place, loosened, and then the loosening partially rolled back. The logical problem with arguing under the APA is that one has to argue that the initial rollback was entirely proper, but the partial rollback of the rollback was not. The tactical problem is that the ruling may be "you're right - neither rollback was proper. Things go back to the initial requirements."

There has been some success in lower courts with the argument "administrations have this power, but this administration does not, because it's filled with stinkers". A possible strategy would be to quickly get an injunction from a friendly judge and then to stall until the issue becomes moot.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
The logical problem with arguing under the APA is that one has to argue that the initial rollback was entirely proper, but the partial rollback of the rollback was not.
If (and I am not sure if this was the reasoning behind the ruling) the initial rollback was to ensure that the education of the students who are currently enrolled in US universities is not interrupted because of the pandemic and that they do not get the coronavirus; can the same argument not be used to say that this partial rollback of the rollback is not proper because the US has failed to contain the virus, and because of that, universities are forced to consider having either all or some of their classes online. All this new rollback does is encourage universities to hold in-person classes (which would probably lead to more cases) or kick international students out (which would interrupt their education)
 
In the US the fact that a government action affects one negatively is usually not by itself enough to get a judicial ruling in one's favor. One needs to show that the action itself is illegal or improper.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
In the US the fact that a government action affects one negatively is usually not by itself enough to get a judicial ruling in one's favor. One needs to show that the action itself is illegal or improper.
Ah I see, and if you try and show that the first was proper and second was not, it may result in
Vanadium 50 said:
"you're right - neither rollback was proper. Things go back to the initial requirements."
That makes sense
 
I wouldn't ascribe it to the lawsuits. They don't work that fast.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I wouldn't ascribe it to the lawsuits. They don't work that fast.
Then how did this happen so fast?

Also, if they just rescinded the order and did not get the ruling turned down by the courts, it's possible that they can try and do this again in the fall semester when things are busier, right?
 
I have emails from no fewer than four organizations taking the credit for this.

Phys12 said:
Also, if they just rescinded the order and did not get the ruling turned down by the courts, it's possible that they can try and do this again in the fall semester when things are busier, right?

That is correct. In fact, the courts cannot rule on it.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I have emails from no fewer than four organizations taking the credit for this.
What's the implication of this? I don't understand

Vanadium 50 said:
That is correct. In fact, the courts cannot rule on it.
Why not?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I wouldn't ascribe it to the lawsuits. They don't work that fast.
Yes, I realize the reversal was not the outcome of a lawsuit. But I suspect the filing of lawsuits by multiple parties was one of the factors considered when the government decided to rescind the new order so quickly. It is at least curious that the first time the government seems to have made their decision public was in a hearing for the MIT/Harvard suit (or am I wrong on this?). We may never know all of the reasons for the reversal or what went on behind the scenes.

Jason
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Phys12 and PeroK
Vanadium 50 said:
On what basis? Courts aren't supposed to rule on whether a policy is good or bad. I also think university administrators will have a bit of an uphill battle with what appears to be their argument: "Let them stay in the country - just keep them off my campus".
Courts rule on whether they think a policy is good or bad or usually "fair" all the time.
 
bob012345 said:
Courts rule on whether they think a policy is good or bad or usually "fair" all the time.

That is not their role. Their role is not to rule on whether it is good or bad, it is to rule on whether it is legal.
 
Last edited:
Vanadium 50 said:
That is not their role. Their role is not to rule on whether it is good or bad, it is to rule on whether it is legal.
That's supposed to be their role. They all say that's their role. But it seems to me that some judges appear to believe things they think are not "fair" or "just" must therefore be illegal.
 
In the US the fact that a government action affects one negatively is usually not by itself enough to get a judicial ruling in one's favor. One needs to show that the action itself is illegal or improper.

If one wants to argue that this - like many things - isn't always done perfectly, I'd agree. But PF isn't really the place to discuss this.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
The history is that requirements were in place, loosened, and then the loosening partially rolled back. The logical problem with arguing under the APA is that one has to argue that the initial rollback was entirely proper, but the partial rollback of the rollback was not. The tactical problem is that the ruling may be "you're right - neither rollback was proper. Things go back to the initial requirements."

There has been some success in lower courts with the argument "administrations have this power, but this administration does not, because it's filled with stinkers". A possible strategy would be to quickly get an injunction from a friendly judge and then to stall until the issue becomes moot.
Shopping around for friendly judges is another serious problem with our legal system. I think all challenges should have to go through a central process and be randomly assigned to different courts for review. Kind of a legal version of thermodynamics to get rid of hot spots.
 
If the university are going online , then shouldn't the enrollment prices change , dramatically , shouldn't the international student pay the same price of local students ? Or even we see major reduction on both categories ?

If the courses is online but what about the exames after all the students will take numerous exams will they took those exams in their homes ?!?

What about the in person experience for some of the experiments like neutron sources or thin film deposition , or some chemistry experiments ? The student should learn how to setup an experiment are you suggesting that he or she set up experiments at their homes on their expenses , who will pay for equipment?

Best wishes
Hagop

If a course or some courses became online what about the pricing of the course ?
 
hagopbul said:
If the university are going online , then shouldn't the enrollment prices change , dramatically , shouldn't the international student pay the same price of local students ? Or even we see major reduction on both categories ?

Considering the local students get a discount because their government is funding the University (at least this is the typical case), I don't see why the prices would be the same.
 
I know some US students whose schools are in Europe, 9 time zones away from their homes, but they are not allowed to physically return to their schools. All courses are online and scheduled between 1am and 5 am, local time at the students' home. Apparently they are being charged full tuition. I find this somewhat absurd. Presumably similar problems would attend international students forced to study from home, online at US schools. Taiwan, e.g. is apparently about 13 time zones later than Boston. I would think the privilege of "attending" remotely a class at 4am is worth rather less than doing so at 1 pm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy