Wash U’s Sluggish Response to International Students’ Crisis
On 6 July, I was scrolling through LinkedIn when a Wall Street Journal article caught my eye. The headline read “New Rules Detail How Foreign Students Can—and Can’t—Take Classes at U.S. Colleges This Fall.” Blocked by a paywall, I frantically searched around for clarity on what these mysterious new rules were. Finally, I found myself reading ICE’s news release. And so, a week full of stress, confusion, and poor communication began.
In disbelief, I messaged my suitemates to process the news of ICE’s directive. The guidance stated that if a college pursed an online fall semester their F-1 and M-1 students had three options: “depart the country,” ‘take a medical leave of absence,” or “transfer to a school with in-person instruction to remain in lawful status.” Those already outside the US would be barred from entering the US to take online classes. Those whose schools offered in-person classes would not be allowed to maintain their visa status while completing online classes in their home country.
Given those options, we immediately started to brainstorm ways to work around ICE’s directive. After many suggestions of questionable legality, my suitemate Emily came up with the idea to start a social media campaign. Our goal was to spread awareness while pressuring Wash U to support its international students. With the understanding that around 80% of Wash U’s international students were still in the US, we set about writing a Change.org petition. The petition demanded that Wash U firmly commit to a hybrid model and prioritise its international students in all future planning, especially with the 31 July fall announcement fast approaching. Within 24 hours, the petition had been signed over 3,000 times. It currently has over 8,000 signatures.
A few days feels much longer when you face potential deportation and disruption to your studies.
I believed that the education, health, and futures of countless international students depended on Wash U implementing a hybrid model. However, the university’s international community is not a monolith. Some international students–including myself—are currently outside of the US. If ICE’s directive had not changed and the university had opted for a hybrid, these students would have been forced to navigate travel bans and expensive flights and hotels to maintain their visa status. And, this wouldn’t be the first time. After campus shut down in March, my plane ticket home cost three times the usual price. The university rejected my emails and application for financial assistance. I saw similar stories of Wash U international students unsure about how to pay for costly trips or take online classes in their home countries. As the fall semester approaches, I fear that the Chancellor’s “unwavering support” will again be slow to help students in this situation.
On 7 July, the Office of International Students and Scholars (OISS) emailed F-1 international students to express their support and committed to follow up shortly with further details on ICE’s new requirements. The next day they announced a forthcoming town hall to assist students and provided a helpful, informative analysis of how ICE’s directive would impact international students inside and outside the US.
If only the Chancellor had been so forthcoming and clear with communications.
OISS’s email factually stated that “if Washington University must switch to offering fully online courses mid-semester, then under the new guidance all F-1 students physically present and attending classes at Washington University will need to either leave the U.S. or take alternative steps to maintain their non-immigrant status.” While international students were privately told this, the Chancellor offered no accompanying mention of plans to fight the directive. Instead, the university publicly released a short statement of ‘support’ and rehashed “expectation” to implement a hybrid model. Now deleted from The Source, this statement fell short of any firm commitment to a hybrid fall and failed to mention action steps or even promise forthcoming plans.
Searching for any small win, I welcomed the statement. However, it was disheartening to see the leaders of so many peer institutions quickly spring into action while Chancellor Martin stayed silent. The Wash U leadership was working diligently behind the scenes, but so much unnecessary stress was caused by their lack of communication. A brief statement that clarified his stance on the directive and committed to a follow-up announcement with steps to be taken would have made the world of difference. I thought a petition to advocate for particular Wash U policies might be necessary, but I never imagined needing to pressure the leadership to comment on and denounce such an exclusionary directive in a timely manner.
On 9 July, Chancellor Martin finally addressed ICE’s directive. This came a day after he had sent an email regarding on-campus health and safety requirements, with no mention of ICE’s announcement. Here was the message of support and denouncement of ICE’s policy that I had been waiting for. Even better, Wash U leadership had been working on several action points to both support international students and pressure the US government to retract ICE’s directive. I welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement, but my relief was still tinged with disappointment. Why did it take so long for a clear statement from Wash U leadership? A few days feels much longer when you face potential deportation and disruption of your studies.
Thankfully, the ICE directive was rescinded a week after its announcement. We live to fight another day and fight we must. The lessons learnt from the Wash U administration’s lacklustre, sluggish response must be carried forward because non-US citizens will continue to be used as political bargaining chips. The university has a duty to protect and care for all of its students. International students face unique challenges that cannot be overlooked or patched over with flashy statements about the value they bring to campus. To be an international student is to have your language, accent, and traditions dissected for fun. To be an international student is to have financial pressures exacerbated by visa restrictions on where and for how many hours you can work. To be an international student is to feel the need to prove your value—be it to the US government, the university, employers, or everyday US citizens who question your presence.
Since its inception 17 years ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) terrorises the undocumented and wider immigrant community. ICE deports people to countries where they face violence and potential death. ICE cages, dehumanises, and abuses people, including children. ICE tears families apart. ICE routinely targets and harms the most vulnerable. The latest directive targeting international students— while abhorrent, unproductive, and dangerous—is just the tip of the iceberg.
Countless articles refer to international students’ $41 billion economic contribution and the high percentage of STEM majors to justify for their presence in the US. Although well-meaning and accurate, such rhetoric feeds into the commodification and dehumanisation of non-US citizens. An international student’s worth should not be boiled down to their wealth or their career. Worse still, countless pundits have also challenged the ICE directive for hurting those that do immigration the “right way.” Attempts to acknowledge the pressures felt by international students should not validate cruel policies against those that could not get documentation and visas. Immigrants and refugees without college degrees should not face discrimination either.
Be it a petition or a sit-in, when Wash U’s leadership has overlooked an issue, what else can we do but pressure them to put in on their agenda?
While international students faced a choice between their education and their health, the Chancellor also made several choices. Behind the scenes, leadership had sprung into action, but it was a choice to poorly communicate their intentions. The Chancellor chose to maintain a twitter break tradition rather than use this platform to communicate. The Chancellor chose to leave 20% of the WashU community “on read” for three days while they faced potential deportation and disruption to their studies. It may seem unnecessary to condemn Wash U’s handling of the ICE directive now that is has been rescinded. However, this sluggish response is part of a wider, ongoing issue. Much of my “emotional stress” that the Chancellor mentioned was a result of his communication problems and the continuous relegation of international students’ needs.
I have served on both the Undergraduate Experience Committee to the Board of Trustees and the Student Affairs Advisory Board. I was told that there had not been a review into the international student experience for years. I rarely experienced discussion into how potential Wash U policies would or were specifically impacting international students. The impacts of this continuous oversight are clear and multifaceted. To use one example, international students who depended on income from their work-study jobs weren’t eligible for Wash U’s work-study reimbursement scheme and no parallel scheme was put in place.
I am not envious of the Chancellor’s position. Within his first year in the role, he has faced immense pressure leading us through the coronavirus pandemic and now ICE’s directive. At times I felt guilty for criticising Wash U and its leadership. What right did I have to pressure the administration into action? The truth is, as students we have every right. We invest time, money, and energy into the university. It is not too big of an ask to have some input into how those contributions are spent. Without any US legislative representation, who else with such financial and social power can international students turn to? Be it a petition or a sit-in, when Wash U’s leadership has overlooked an issue, what else can we do but pressure them to put it on their agenda?
The OISS team is faced with the unenviable task of analysing and communicating ICE’s ever-changing policies. I do not think they should also bear the entire burden of pressuring Wash U leadership to consider international students’ interests and overseeing their wellbeing. There is no Dean of International Students, permanent student representation on task forces, or a similar leadership position solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of international students. Without this representation, international students must continue to pressure the Wash U administration to follow through on their promise of “unwavering support.”