Harvard, Law School Foreign Students Contribute More Than Revenue

Harvard University won a temporary restraining order May 23 against the Department of Homeland Security’s revocation of the school’s ability to host foreign students, but in important ways the Trump administration won a victory of its own.

The Trump administration has succeeded in sowing fear among international students and capitalizing on educational institutions’ tendency, including law schools, to treat international students as revenue streams. The nation’s educational institutions and law schools should stand up and affirm international students’ real value as members of educational communities.

Harvard’s complaint challenging the removal of its ability to host students with F-1 visas or J-1 immigrant status does, commendably, assert that international students are “publishing pioneering scholarship, supporting scientific research, inventing groundbreaking technologies, and starting thriving businesses here in America.”

But Harvard’s complaint also acknowledges that “countless academic programs, research laboratories, clinics, and courses supported by Harvard’s international students have been thrown into disarray,” obliquely referencing the fact that international students fund many such programs. Similarly, in law schools, international students pay tuition toward one-year LL.M. programs, three-year J.D. programs, and other short-term programs.

Protecting international students’ place in educational institutions is important, but is only the first step. US institutions of higher education must do better to affirm international students’ belonging. International students in law schools, particularly international LL.M. students, enrich discussions of the rule of law, expose flaws in the assumptions on which the US legal system is based, and drive debates about the meaning of words that contribute to more precise understanding of the law.

To go beyond first steps, US law schools should bolster institutional supports for international students, create rigorous standards for programs that rely on international students, and, most importantly, reframe attitudes toward international students.

Strengthening institutional supports starts with visa status, and many law schools already provide substantial resources for this. But international students also face challenges with funding, housing, social connections, and more.

Despite being cast as sources of revenue, some international students need fellowships simply to be here and do important work such as advocating for women’s human rights.

Housing can be a challenge as not all law schools have dormitories, and rental lease terms tend to default to twelve months whereas an LL.M. program might only last nine months.

International LL.M. students are also pressured in that compressed time period to acclimate to a new place, learn new educational styles, and build relationships with colleagues and faculty.

Finally, there are social and psychological challenges, such as navigating racism or xenophobia as faced by Asian international graduate students who studied in the US during the pandemic.

International students may also receive short shrift in the rigor of academic programming. The American Bar Association’s accrediting body for law schools issues standards that require minimum credit hours and curriculum for US J.D. programs, such as professional responsibility, writing, experiential coursework, professional development, and education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism. Though some J.D. students are international, many international students in law schools are in postgraduate Master of Laws, or LL.M. programs, which aren’t addressed in detail in the standards.

Real support for international students must come from a shift in attitudes. In my own experience, narratives about international students often focus on whether English skills or familiarity with US learning environments are sufficient for participation in class discussions or writing requirements. Such narratives overlook the diversity, range of experiences, analytical abilities, and deep legal knowledge and expertise international students, especially international LL.M. students, bring to US law schools.

Their perspectives are critical to understanding what the rule of law means in these turbulent times, and what justice should be.

International students fulfill a role broader and richer than serving as revenue sources or supports. Harvard should be lauded for fighting to keep international students as a presence on its campuses, and other institutions should take the next steps to turn presence into real belonging.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Eun Hee Han is an associate professor of law at Georgetown Law and has created programs for international LL.M. students.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines