Harvard Must Keep ICE off Campus

On Saturday, United States Border Patrol agents killed Alex Pretti on the streets of South Minneapolis. Holding only his cell phone in his hands, Pretti stepped between a woman and an agent who was pepper spraying her — seconds later he was tackled to the ground and shot dead.

As a lifelong Minnesotan, I am once again grieving the devastating terror that Operation Metro Surge and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement occupation has wrought on my city. Just minutes from my home, an ICE agent shot Renee Good in her car. Minnesotans have been harassed, beaten, detained, and taken into custody. Agents patrol street corners, gas stations, stores, school grounds, and in helicopters that circle overhead.

To be back on campus, enjoying relative peace and freedom, is profoundly disorienting. There is, today, a stark contrast between my two homes. But I am, nonetheless, overwhelmed by the sense that should an ICE operation begin here, Harvard would be unprepared to protect its most vulnerable.

For the safety of its students, faculty, staff, and mission, Harvard must take steps to prevent ICE from operating within its gates. The best way to do so is halting public access to the Yard and campus buildings.

Ordinarily, Harvard and other academic institutions would be immune to immigration enforcement operations. In 2021, former President Joe Biden issued a policy memo restricting immigration enforcement actions in schools, hospitals, places of worship, locations where children gather, and other sensitive areas. In 2025, on the first day of his second term, President Trump’s administration rescinded that policy and declared law enforcement should exercise “discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense.”

Let Minneapolis be your proof: ICE has neither discretion nor common sense.

Federal agents have purportedly detained a man based on his accent, deployed tear gas next to a car with young children, and repeatedly tackled and beaten non-violent observers and bystanders. These are not isolated incidents or careless mistakes. They comprise a deliberate campaign of indiscriminate, disproportionate, and sometimes deadly force.

The danger is not only physical. Blatant racial profiling and violence create a widespread culture of fear — not just for immigrants or people without proper documentation, but for entire communities and cities.

Moreover, an ICE presence has a chilling effect on speech and open discourse. In fact, Minnesota residents recently sued the federal government, alleging that its agents were using force to suppress speech. By responding to dissent with disproportionate violence, authorities have blurred the line between lawful protest and domestic terror, instilling fear around actions protected under the First Amendment.

In a post on X, the Department of Homeland Security recently quoted Stephen Miller telling ICE officers that they have “federal immunity” when conducting their duties and that anyone who tries to “obstruct” agents is “committing a felony.” The Trump administration has proven itself quite comfortable with weaponizing legal ambiguity against their opponents. Harvard, of all institutions, should know this.

In a world where President Trump refocuses on Harvard, protesting, notifying peers of ICE agents’ location, and even penning op-eds against their intrusion could all be portrayed as obstruction. If the University does not take action, its mission of open inquiry and constructive discourse — and the physical safety of its community — is in real danger.

At present, Harvard’s physical campus is largely public. In normal times, I believe that such openness is deeply valuable. To be in service of the country and closed to its people would be a deep paradox. But today, the University cannot fulfill its mission without temporarily sacrificing its inclusivity to the general public.

Under current federal policy, ICE agents are free to enter and conduct raids in any public area without a warrant. Though Harvard currently requests that ICE notify Harvard University Police Department before conducting enforcement actions, there is no reason to expect that the DHS will oblige. In the absence of other options, Harvard’s best defense is suspending public access to the Yard and common spaces.

Harvard can also take steps to protect private spaces on campus. Legal scholars argue that the Fourth Amendment prohibits ICE from entering into a private space without a judicial warrant, yet ICE frequently presents DHS-issued administrative warrants to gain entry to private areas. The Harvard International Office notes on their website that only judicial warrants give ICE permission to enter dorms without consent, but to further protect affiliates, Harvard should educate students, staff, and security personnel on deceptive enforcement tactics.

The University must walk a careful line between concrete steps to protect our community and putting a target on our back. The stakes are too high for inaction and too urgent for indecision. It would be naive to suggest that changing campus security policy alone could keep ICE out, but it is a critical step.

There will undoubtedly be a cost, but restricting access to Harvard is necessary. Students must continue to believe Harvard is a safe place not only to live, but also to study, ask questions, and follow the truth wherever it leads.

In service of this ideal, Harvard must close the gates.

Caroline R. Kramer ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Grays Hall.