Keeping Tabs On SEVIS

A $100 fee could soon be imposed on international students to cover expenses for the newly developed Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a database designed to track foreign students studying in the United States. While such a system is worthwhile, the price set by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for its maintenance is seemingly too high and has not been sufficiently justified.

SEVIS is a tool to protect against terrorists who might attempt to misuse student visas. But while security must surely be ensured, SEVIS should neither discourage international students from study in the U.S. nor hinder their freedoms. At a time when foreign students are more valuable than ever in enriching our own understanding of world cultures, international students who wish to study in the U.S. must feel—and be—welcomed. American colleges benefit from the presence of these students who add diverse perspectives from around the world to college communities.

While charging fees to foreign students is understandable—the revenue will help to maintain SEVIS, as the law providing for the database outlined—$100 is unnecessarily high. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, which had overseen SEVIS, was folded into the DHS in March, but seven months earlier, in August 2002, they had hired KPMG Consulting to determine a practical per-international-student fee to maintain the database. The firm found that the fee could safely fall well below the original Congressional ceiling of $95 and that only $54 per student was needed to cover the costs of the program.

It is unfair for the DHS to increase the fee to $100 without any reasonable justification. If the system can legitimately be maintained at the lower rate, then foreign students should only be responsible for the recommended $54. The DHS is not in the business of fleecing prospective international students, and it needs to enlighten the public about why the costs of maintaining its program are now considered to be so high. Vague explanations—such as professing that not all factors were considered, as the DHS has done in the past—do not fulfill this obligation.

Harvard has yet to respond to the policy, waiting to see how other institutions react and to look further into the implications of the fee. But regardless of other institutions’ responses, Harvard should help to cover this new cost for students who demonstrate sufficient need. Other costs—such as travel allowances—are considered by Harvard on a case-by-case basis under its current financial aid system, and Harvard should respond to additional burdens for foreign students by extending aid to cover SEVIS and visa costs for students who cannot afford them.

But while the University will be able to ease the problems for its international students, other colleges are not equipped with the same financial resources, and the higher fee will still be an issue for prospective students to many schools. Unless the DHS offers specific justification for the $100 fee, it is irresponsible to not lower it. SEVIS should be implemented, but not at the cost of education.