Silencing international students corrodes the spirit of HE

The current higher education environment in the United States could be described as chilling. This effect is the result of sudden cuts to targeted higher education institutions such as Columbia and Johns Hopkins universities, unprecedented turmoil at the US Agency for International Development, abrupt cancellations of research grants and contracts in multiple national science and technology labs and hiring freezes of faculty and staff at increasing numbers of universities nationwide.

The subsequent detention of Mahmoud Khalil by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from his Columbia University-owned apartment marked a significant escalation in the unfolding attack on higher education by the federal executive government.

The reason given by authorities for his detention and the cancellation of his green card by the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was his involvement as a negotiator between student protesters and the Columbia University administration during the fall 2024 semester.

A severe additional escalation took place when Rumeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, was detained by plainclothes ICE agents travelling in unmarked vehicles. While the details of these cases are confidential, it appears that Öztürk’s visa cancellation was associated with her op-ed published in The Tufts Daily, a student newspaper.

Soon after, additional detentions became public at the University of Alabama and the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Secretary Rubio announced he had revoked “at least 300 students’ visas” so far, citing the intention to continue adopting this measure if international students are “causing a ruckus”.

Reports suggest University of California schools, Stanford, Ohio State University, Cincinnati, Arizona State, University of Massachusetts and other institutions are getting their visas revoked by US Citizenship and Immigration Services without school officials being notified.

The harms of curtailing campus speech

Before going further, we wish to express unambiguously that we reject antisemitism and all forms of hate speech. The focus of this opinion is not to comment on the particular cases of Öztürk, Khalil or on the boundaries of acceptable forms of speech, as those topics fall outside our expertise.

It is unwise to attribute intent to the current situation without complete information, but a consequentialist ethical analysis is possible at present: we contend that the chilly climate for free speech ensuing from the ongoing detentions and visa cancellations harms all higher education, not just international students, and hinders future US foreign policy efforts.

Our purpose is twofold: addressing the struggles of international students to navigate the complex world of student conduct and campus policies, and emphasising the importance of preserving free speech in universities.

The student protests on university campuses in 2024 that followed the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas have ignited conversations among both scholars and practitioners in universities about norms around time, place and manner of student expression.

We argue that higher education institutions, not the federal government, should promote these norms as they are part of the formative process offered to students if we are to prepare them to engage productively in civic life.

At the same time, these norms should not be applied retroactively or responsively, but rather in developmental ways. This is very important for international students, who are often unfamiliar with the adjudication of academic and non-academic student conduct cases, let alone campus policies on expressions of free speech.

Recent conversations with Chinese international students at higher education institutions confirm that conformity and fear do not foster authentic belonging.

In a recent study asking international students about their perceptions on campus policies, many said they feel compelled to self-censor, particularly if they suspect administrators or outside authorities might penalise them for speaking out at campus rallies or even in classroom dialogues.

One student declined to participate in a campus climate survey, citing anxiety that any strongly worded feedback could be traced back and could jeopardise their legal status.

Corroding the spirit of HE

Weaponising campus policies against peaceful debate or candid input only corrodes the spirit of higher education. Even more troubling is the growing perception among international students that they are excluded from the very conversations shaping campus policies or feel helpless due to unfamiliarity with them.

While universities frequently brand themselves as champions of inclusivity, that claim grows shakier by the day, especially as many quietly retire their diversity, equity and inclusion language in favour of more ‘palatable’ rhetoric.

In practice, few institutions meaningfully engage non-citizen students in conversations about how shifting safety policies, protest restrictions or institutional decisions directly impact their lives.

When these voices are left out – intentionally or by omission – the academic community fails to uphold the principles of shared governance and democratic engagement. Civil discourse is essential to the evolution of ideas and the health of a vibrant intellectual environment. Without it, higher education risks becoming less a space of inquiry and more a space of compliance.

These exclusions not only threaten academic freedom but also weaken the global appeal of US institutions. Prospective international students may reconsider their choices when they hear stories of peers facing silence, marginalisation or even visa consequences for participating in campus activism.

The suppression of dialogue, whether through overt regulation or institutional neglect, undermines the expansive thinking and cross-cultural collaboration that define higher education’s global mission.

Negotiating disagreements, as Khalil did, and expressing perspectives in public forums, as Öztürk did, are fundamental components of liberal education – a pillar of US higher education.

Many students elect to study in the United States precisely because of the freedom to pursue academic interests and the relative openness of US society.

Removing these assurances of freedom, as the recent detentions have done, harms the standing of the United States as a destination of choice for the brightest minds to study, collaborate and – yes – sometimes migrate.

Reinforcing an outsider status

The chilly environment for campus speech that recent detentions have caused comes at a terrible time. International students are already hesitant to participate in accepted forms of civic participation and political discourse.

In some cases, while seeking to study in an open society, censorship and surveillance from their home country has followed them and is enforced by their peers.

International students, particularly those from countries with histories of censorship, already contend with cultural differences, language barriers and limited local support systems.

Adding the anxiety that any offensive statement (let alone not knowing what is or is not offensive) or protest attendance might be flagged by authorities further dissuades them from participating, compounding an already chilly environment for campus speech.

Some express a genuine desire to learn more about controversial issues but shy away from petitions, public forums and social media debates out of fear. Secretary Rubio’s statement that causing a “ruckus” could result in a visa cancellation is extremely ambiguous and only adds to the ongoing sense of uncertainty.

The context we have discussed reinforces a sense of outsider status among international students; it deprives domestic students of global perspectives and dilutes the spirit of academic exploration.

Silencing these voices hinders, rather than advances, internationalisation. A truly open campus doesn’t subject non-citizen learners to heightened scrutiny or deter them with vague threats of visa consequences.

Instead, institutions should include international students in policy discussions and make clear – through transparent guidelines, public commitments and staff training – that they are free to question, dissent and participate fully in campus discourse.

This shifts them from passive observers to active contributors in the democratic fabric of higher education.

A significant crisis

To conclude, it is important to acknowledge that higher education in the US faces a significant crisis. It is reasonable to be afraid of a federal administration that has shown a vindictive and punitive approach. However, anticipatory compliance and silence only protect higher education institutions until they don’t.

We are not naïve to think that this or other op-ed pieces will convince state or homeland security to change course. However, simply exercising one’s rights is likely the most accessible way to preserve such rights. Using our free speech also serves as testament to the world that not everyone in the US agrees with the current state of affairs.

Haishan (Sam) Yang is an EdD candidate in higher education administration at the University of Southern California, USA. Gerardo Blanco is an associate professor and academic director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, USA.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.