Harvard University is currently embroiled in controversy as it refuses to hand over I-9 records for students hired in student-only roles, citing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a federal privacy law designed to protect students’ educational records.
This situation has drawn criticism from various stakeholders, including David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University who specializes in constitutional and administrative law. Super expressed concern that the university’s actions may reflect a broader trend of government overreach targeting international students, describing the administration’s behavior as engaging in ‘fishing expeditions’ aimed at gathering excessive information about these students.
Super emphasized the precarious position of the Harvard community, where students and faculty feel compelled to rely on the institution’s willingness to engage in costly litigation to safeguard them from potential retaliation related to their First Amendment activities.
Despite the university’s stance, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has yet to comment on the unfolding situation.
Federal law mandates that all employers and their employees complete Form I-9 documents to confirm workers’ identities and employment eligibility. Additionally, federal regulations grant the government the right to inspect these documents, requiring businesses to produce requested forms within three business days.
In a recent statement, Harvard affirmed its commitment to compliance with federal law, declaring its intention to provide the I-9 records requested by DHS. However, this exemption excludes students hired in roles specifically designated for students.
Furthermore, Harvard has urged DHS to ensure that the records obtained in relation to this investigation will be securely maintained and only accessible to authorized personnel within the department. The university also insisted that the information would be used strictly for purposes permitted by law.
The impact of these employment records requests extends throughout the university, affecting a diverse array of employees, including faculty, administrative staff, custodians, and dining hall workers. As one of Massachusetts’ largest employers, Harvard’s workforce exceeds 20,000, not accounting for student employees.
Denish Jaswal, a member of the Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Workers, has condemned the federal government’s actions as an attack on both Harvard and its noncitizen workforce. He underscored the importance of attracting global talent to tackle complex societal challenges, asserting that continued federal pressure on non-citizen workers could have detrimental effects on everyone involved.
These subpoenas for employment documents come alongside earlier orders demanding access to international students’ records, which heightens the stakes and the sense of urgency within the academic environment.
Since President Alan Garber’s announcement in April rejecting compliance with the Trump administration’s broad demands for changes at Harvard, the government has retaliated by withdrawing over $3 billion in federal research funding. This has included threats to the university’s accreditation and multiple high-profile legal battles.
Particularly concerning is the federal administration’s focus on international students, accused of colluding with adversaries like the Chinese government. Allegations, lacking substantial evidence, suggest that these students may have propagated ‘pro-Hamas’ messaging during protests regarding the conflict in Gaza.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has publicly criticized Harvard, claiming the institution has fostered violence and antisemitism, as well as cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party.
Despite Harvard’s legal challenge against this claim, the State Department has initiated an investigation into the university’s participation in a visa program that facilitates access for international students, faculty, and scholars.
While the current actions may not directly impact a significant number of international students at Harvard, they are illustrative of a broader trend wherein the federal government is tightening scrutiny over international student programs nationwide.
For instance, a recent agreement with Columbia University necessitated that the institution reassess its admissions processes for international students, thereby highlighting the ongoing challenges facing universities that depend on global enrollment.
Overall, the circumstances surrounding Harvard’s I-9 records requests are emblematic of heightened federal scrutiny and the challenging landscape that schools face regarding international students and their rights.
image source from：bostonglobe
