There have been multiple reports in recent months about abrupt cancellations of student visas and SEVPs (Student and Exchange Visitor Programs) of international students in US universities without any prior notification or warning. This situation evolved from the feud between President Donald Trump and elite universities like Harvard and Columbia regarding alleged tolerance of those schools of violent anti-semitic protests and various purportedly anti-US activities.
These events drew my attention because of my own migration to the US for higher education on a student visa and my concern for thousands of fellow Indian students on a similar path. Many questions immediately popped up in my head:
a) Why do American universities even admit so many international students?
b) Why do foreign students come to the US?
c) Does anyone vet these applicants about their background?
d) Should the US pull the plug on students who have risked their entire future and financial resources to realize the dream of an American education?
There are, at least, three answers to the first question:
i) tuition from foreign students helps the university’s financial situation;
ii) building of cultural diversity in the student body and
iii) drop in domestic enrolment. Students have many different reasons for US education: better education, more opportunities with a US-education, exposure to a foreign culture, possible US citizenship, worldwide travel and so on. To answer the other questions, a review of my migration to the US is in order. I really did not have a burning desire to get a PhD degree in the US, and my parents certainly did not have the financial means to support that ambition even if I did.
My decision was made by peer pressure more than anything else; many of my friends from Presidency College were applying for graduate study in the US and my competitive spirit kicked in. What made my decision easy was the fact that I could get a “teaching assistantship”. It was different from a scholarship or a fellowship because it required me to do some work in exchange for that financial help – typically teaching undergraduate physics labs. The assistantship not only provided enough money for financial survival, but all the tuition was paid for. In other words, I did not make any financial contribution to the revenue of US universities.
This is true for most graduate level assistantships. Undergraduate education is a different story. There are no teaching or research assistantships available for undergraduates. The very few scholarships are reserved for exceptionally brilliant students. As a result, only students from extremely wealthy families can afford to come to the US for undergraduate studies and pay the tuition and living expenses. They are not even allowed to work under a student visa. My application for admission to any graduate school started with a simple informal letter to the chairman of the physics department. In response, I received a large envelope containing a standard acknowledgement letter, application forms, description of the application procedure, a university catalogue and some other informational material. Two key requirements for the application process were a fee and recommendation letters from professors familiar with my academic work.
In retrospect, I recognize that there was no official questionnaire or requirement about my personal background, especially political and/or ideological viewpoints and not even hobbies. I was not vetted. To tell you the truth, I didn’t even have a strong political view. Capitalism seemed better than communism for both my professional and personal future – a conviction resulting from Naxal movements which severely and adversely affected our college education in Kolkata. As a result, I had no inkling to join any student protest or demonstrations in the US even though the Vietnam war was still raging. Coming from a turbulent political environment in Kolkata, I was surprised to see a lack of political activity or even discussion among students.
When I asked one of my American friends, he chuckled and said, “You are too new to this country to understand that politics in this country is decided by big corporations and mega donors”. I didn’t even see Indian students publicly supporting India’s war against Pakistan for the liberation of Bangladesh. My successful completion of a PhD degree in the US opened the door to a green card, eventual citizenship and a good professional career. I have lived a productive and prosperous life, and I am thankful to the US education system for that. It would have been a devastating experience if my student visa was revoked before my completion of PhD regardless of the reason. However, as a US citizen, I fully agree with the thinking that there is no place for foreign students in this country who hate America or have some destructive political agenda such as antisemitism.
Such students should not be given student visas or be deported if they are already here. Same is true for students whose primary purpose is espionage, stealing proprietary information or other activities harmful to the US. I do not know how US policies regarding student visas and SEVP will change in future. Based on my personal experience, my conviction is that granting student visas or revoking existing ones should not be a blanket decision affecting all international students in the same way but based on a systematic, logical approach. Most importantly, one must make a distinction between graduate and undergraduate students. Graduate foreign students are emotionally more mature and do not see the point of participating in any activist type of role.
They are more concerned about establishing their career, starting a family and possibly getting a green card; they are all dreaming about a bright future. The undergraduate student population are more passionate about ideological causes, more easily excitable and not too concerned about consequences. I believe that it would be unfair to the international graduate students to impose the same visa restrictions as undergraduates. Even for undergraduate students, we must be selective before imposing visa restrictions. Education in the US is very expensive. If we look around the globe it is likely that wealthy students come from oil-rich Middle Eastern countries and China. The Muslim students from radical Islamic countries are likely to have an inherent anti-Israeli, and by extension an anti-American sentiment.
The Chinese students are less likely to take sides in Arab-Israeli conflicts. On the other hand, if we are concerned about espionage or theft of intellectual properties, Chinese students, especially the graduate students, must be vetted thoroughly. They are likely to have the capability to do advanced research on items like chemicals, biological elements and formulation of new dangerous materials. Recent arrests of multiple Chinese students at the University of Michigan for trying to smuggle undeclared biological material is a case in point.
Graduate students would also have better capability to understand new promising technical ideas and copy them. In summary, if the goal is to eliminate applicants who are hostile to the US and its policies, the priority should be careful screening of Islamic Middle Eastern undergraduate students. On the other hand, the US should focus on Chinese graduate students to protect intellectual properties or prevent development of dangerous materials. Fortunately, compared to my student days, it has now become much easier to check the background of any applicant, thanks to the use of AI to scan their social media activities.
(The writer, a physicist who worked in industry and academia, is a Bengali settled in America.)