Harvard University And American Dream – A Legal Examination

“(T)hat dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement … (it is) a dream of a social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognised by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

This is the representation of American institutions that students across the world have aspired to for decades. This has also been the representation of opportunity, merit and aspiration for ages. It would not be a stretch to say that the pinnacle of this aspiration for many, is getting educated at the prestigious Harvard University.

Of late, there has been an evident power struggle between the US Government and the Harvard University. With the Government freezing the University's funds, threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status and the latest withdrawal of its SEVP-certification, international students enrolled/planning to enrol in Harvard are confused, worried and do not know what to expect.

Chain Of Events

1. March 31, 2025

On March 31, 2025, the U.S. federal government sent a letter to Harvard threatening to cut billions in funding due to concerns over antisemitism and other alleged civil rights violations, demanding sweeping reforms including ending DEI[i].

In response, Harvard President Alan Garber acknowledged the threat but signalled the university's intent to resist what it viewed as unprecedented government overreach into academic freedom.[ii]

2. April 11, 2025 – Beginning of the Struggle

In a letter to the President of the Harvard[iii], the Government called on the University to accept in principle the following conditions:

a. Governance and leadership reforms, reducing the power held by students, untenured faculty, and other actors “more committed to activism than scholarship”.

b. The letter called for “Merit-Based Hiring and Admission Reform”, ceasing all 'preferences', demonstrated through structural changes. The letter also demands that all hiring and admissions data shall be shared with the federal government, which shall be subjected to an audit. Harvard must also publicly release non-individualized admissions data, including statistics on rejected and admitted students, broken down by race, color, national origin, etc.

It may be noted here that the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ('SFFA', 2023) effectively ended race-based affirmative action college admissions in the US. For decades, cases like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) had permitted limited race-conscious admissions. This was further reaffirmed in Fisher v. University of Texas cases (2013, 2016), also now overruled. Therefore, virtually all race-conscious admission authority in higher education has been invalidated, and race can no longer be a factor in college admissions.

c. Harvard has been asked to reform its international admissions policy to prevent admitting international students hostile to the American values, and those that support terrorism or anti-Semitism. A conduct violation by any foreign student must be reported to the federal authorities.

d. By the end of 2025, Harvard University must complete an external audit of its entire institution to ensure viewpoint diversity across all departments and implement reforms. The letter states that Harvard must abolish all criteria that function as 'ideological litmus tests'.

e. By the end of 2025, Harvard must audit programs flagged for antisemitism or bias, identify those responsible, and implement reforms.

f. The University is called on to immediately end all DEI initiatives.

g. Harvard must immediately establish confidential reporting procedures for noncompliance with reforms, ensuring full protection for whistleblowers from retaliation.

h. Harvard must ensure full transparency with federal regulators, providing quarterly progress reports on reforms and fully disclosing all foreign funding details and immigration information.

This letter has a repeated use of the phrase “to the satisfaction of the Federal Government”, indicating this subjective discretion as the final decider.

3. April 14, 2025 – Harvard refuses to accept demands

Harvard responded via letter dated 14.04.2025[iv] and addressed issues regarding antisemitism, maintaining that it “has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural, policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students”. It further stated that it fosters a community from intimidation 'whatever their source'. The response also highlights new accountability procedures undertaken in the past year, including measures against antisemitism.

The University noted that it was unfortunate that the Federal Government presented demands in contravention of the First Amendment[v], affirmed by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. President Garber, in his open letter[vi], says these demands also exceed the statutory limits of the government's authority under Title VI[vii]. Further, he stated that the decision of SFFA case is being complied with by the Harvard University. The terms proposed circumvent Harvard's statutory rights by requiring disruptive remedies for alleged harms, which have not been proven by law. While rejecting any surrender of institutional independence, the university said it remains open to dialogue.

4. Approximately $3bn in federal funding to Harvard frozen

As a result of Harvard's response, Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced “a freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60M in multi-year contract value to Harvard University”[viii]. Further funding cuts have also been threatened.

It is reported that this freeze has put a halt to work across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. Key NIH-funded cancer and Alzheimer's research at Harvard-affiliated hospitals has been paused, alongside disruption of engineering and public health studies.

In its lawsuit, Harvard has mentioned the statements of a federal government representative saying, “When you see universities start losing millions of dollars in federal funding, you're going to see a change in their behaviour”[ix] and “I've targeted ten schools. Columbia, Harvard, Michigan, UCLA, USC. Let me tell you what we're going to do. We're going to take away your funding.”[x]

5. Student Visa Revocation and Reinstatement

Harvard International Office ('HIO') reported multiple instances of revocation of visas of Harvard Students throughout April.[xi] Later, the HIO informed[xii] that all the students who had had their visas revoked by the State Department have their visa status reverted back to active.

It is noteworthy that around the same time, thousands of student visas[xiii] were being revoked. Reportedly, these revocations were a result of students protests, primarily pro-Palestine protests. US Secretary of State Marc Rubio in late March stated[xiv] that they had revoked “maybe more than 300 (student visas) at this point”. In a sharp increase, late in May during a Congressional hearing, he stated that the count was now “probably in the thousands”.

It is noteworthy that these visas have been revoked using the US Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The law read with the Foreign Affairs Manual “allows the Secretary of State to exclude (…) any applicant whose entry or proposed activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”[xv]. However, Rubio clarified that some of these visas were revoked for violating visa conditions. He did not mention what percentage of visas of the said 'thousands' were revoked under this category.

6. April 16, 2025 – Request of Information

In the letter dated 16.04.2025 to the HIO, DHS criticized Harvard for failing “to condemn antisemitism.” Further, the Department demanded that HIO produce what the University claims is “wide-ranging information” for each student visa holder across Harvard's schools within ten business days. The communication further stated that failure to do so within time (effectively, by April 30, 2025) would be treated as a voluntary withdrawal from the F-1 program, not subject to appeal.

7. April 17, 2025 – Request for Information

US Department of Education served Harvard with a Notice of Investigation issued under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, alleging that Harvard failed to fully disclose foreign gifts and contracts, and requesting further information. While not directly related to this present controversy, this illustrates the broader scrutiny Harvard is under from federal authorities.

8. Compliance by Harvard

The University in its complaint filed before the District Court at Massachusetts has stated that it promptly collected the information sought and submitted the same by April 30. Further, the complaint states that on a follow-up request by the DHS, additional information was also shared by the University on May 14.

The University despite having offered the information, calls the DHS's request 'unprecedented'.

9. May 22, 2025

In a directive titled 'Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program Decertification'[xvi], the Secretary of Homeland Security cited alleged compliance failures and announced the revocation of SEVP certification, placing the visa status of international students at risk. The letter stated that it was a privilege to enrol foreign students as well as employ aliens on campus, reiterating the language used by Rubio in the Congressional hearings.

F-1 visas are primarily for students enrolled in full-time academic/vocational studies at a Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified school. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) maintains a list[xvii] of these SEVP-certified schools, and only such certified schools can enrol F non-immigrant students. The J-1 visa holders are usually those who participate in educational and cultural exchange programs.

Harvard says that these programs has run in the Harvard University for over 70 years without any challenge or disruption, until now.

10. May 23, 2025

A federal judge granted a temporary injunction order[xviii] in favour of Harvard on May 23, enjoining the Government Departments from acting on the May 22 notice until full hearings.

11. Latest Events

Harvard received legal support from other Ivy Leagues and alumni who filed amicus briefs before the Court in its favour. Government continues to be on the offensive: alleging links with China, raising questions over federal funding and terminating grants. On 4 June 2025, a Presidential Proclamation was issued restricting the issuance of foreign student visas 'solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard…'[xix]. Harvard has responded by saying that this is 'yet another illegal step', assuring legal action.[xx]

Right v. Privilege Discourse

The April 11 letter from the Government said, “…an investment is not an entitlement” suggesting that Harvard has no inherent right to receive federal funding. Further, it has been emphasised that visa (therefore, enrolment of foreign students) remains a privilege, and not a right. Technically, this position is not incorrect.

Entry and stay within the US for a non-citizen is not a right. However, this does not imply that these students (and Harvard, as their enroller) have no rights. Once admitted and present in the country lawfully, they are entitled to certain legal protections, most prominently due process, non-discrimination and safeguards under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The repetitive “privilege-not-right” discourse flattens this legal complexity. It has been reiterated by the Courts there that '(o)nce an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent'.[xxi]

The global repute of Harvard University is in no small manner shaped by its international students. While they excel within the University's rich academic environment, they later go on and shape critical areas of world, benefiting both the United States and the world at large. All across X (formerly Twitter), one could see slogans akin to 'Harvard – but for Americans', suggesting that taxpayers of the US are essentially paying for international students. This rhetoric pushes a false, gratuitous picture which ignores the quid pro quo aspect of international students and the ethical obligations of institutions in a globalized world.

The Harvard dream, much like the American Dream remains rooted in aspiration: a promise of academic excellence as well as the possibility of the 'better, richer and fuller life' through perseverance. Old institutions like Harvard are not simply national actors, they are global sites of intellectual dialogue and education. Diversity, pluralism and representation remain at its core. Abandoning these core values, which lie at the heart of the American (or any) democratic tradition, would be a blow to the stature of these institutions.

Universities cannot be exclusionary spaces. Like President Garber said in his letter, freedom of thought and inquiry has enabled universities to create a free society, and everyone shares an equal stake in safeguarding it. The promise of American universities is under test, whether this moment marks its erosion or a reaffirmation of its enduring value remains to be seen.

The author is a PhD Scholar at OP Jindal University. Views are personal