The following op-ed will appear in a print edition of The Crimson the week of June 2.

As Harvard once again begins the unceremonious deactivation of its students’ swipe cards—some for just the summer, and some forever—consider just what that swipe access represents for students here and at schools across the country. Access to higher education provides access to opportunity in its strictest sense and can be both a source of individual pride and a path of achievement for young adults. Yet, we cannot be content with the status quo in the United States. Access to quality education must continue to be expanded for students of socioeconomically and geographically diverse backgrounds. Government and administrative policies need to promote this access and nurture healthy learning environments that specifically preserve free speech.

A serious roadblock to this mission stems from the structure of the private student loan industry. The common practice of private loan corporations entering into partnerships with universities to be listed as “preferred lenders” has a deleterious impact on students. This year, the Department of Education issued new federal rules aimed at curtailing financial exploitation. Though these new policies were well intentioned, they were also more lenient than many state regulations already in place. The federal intervention could weaken current state laws and undo the accomplishments of New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo in convincing dozens of universities and lending corporations to agree upon a more stringent code of conduct in lender negotiations.

A second concern exists: At four-year colleges, approximately 15 percent of students take out private loans instead of federal ones. Private lenders can offer more money than federal loans, but also charge much higher interest rates, leaving students in substantial debt. A promising effort in Washington D.C. this year was spearheaded by Senator Edward M. Kennedy ’56 and other leading Democrats to increase both the number of federal Pell Grants available to college students and raise the maximum size of those awards. The proposed bill, called the “Strengthening Student Aid for All Act,” would allow more students from low-income backgrounds to seek college education while avoiding costly private loans.

In a similar vein, education funding for illegal immigrants is being threatened in the United States. Legislation like Proposition 300, passed in Arizona in November 2006, prohibits the state from subsidizing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. The measure, however, mainly impacts the children of illegal immigrants, many of whom have been raised in the U.S. This group deserves access to educational opportunities and should not be denied this opportunity by what is—at its core—xenophobia.

Thankfully, elsewhere, policies are being implemented that will increase access to education for low-income students. Tufts University announced a program to financially assist all students who enter careers in public and non-profit sectors, independent of their school and concentration. Princeton University has entirely eliminated student loans from its financial aid packages. These types of creative, progressive policies should serve as models for Harvard and other universities.

International students are also consistently impeded from U.S. educational opportunities. Anyone seeking academic or vocational visas (F, J, and M visas) may have to pay up to $200 when new changes take effect on October 1, 2009. International students already come largely from high-income backgrounds, as they are not eligible for federal assistance and must consider the costs of travel in their education budget. Consequently, there is little socioeconomic diversity among this pool of applicants. Visa fees need not serve as another obstacle to socioeconomic diversification. The fee hike announced in April is directed at improving the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), administered by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The system is designed to observe and document the activities of international students—which is in itself a cause for concern. Excessive tracking systems will only increase feelings of exclusion and turn away more talented international students.

Unfortunately, problems remain for international students even once they arrive. The cap on H-1B Visas, a document which permits highly trained students and professionals to work for three years in the U.S., is tremendously low. International college students should be allowed to work domestically and contribute to the U.S. economy after graduation. The current cap is at 65,000 visas, though 133,000 people applied for one last year on only the first day. For seniors, this often means the need to prove that they have completed the requirements for their degree before the end of their senior year. Of course, this can often not be done if one takes any required courses in his or her last semester. The current capping policy results in effective deportation of talented foreign-born students.

The academic environment at universities is served greatly by a diversity of thought and opinion. Often this is most perceptibly reflected in student journalism. This year, though, censorship of the student presses at many prominent schools threatened to compromise the free speech environment that is essential to a quality education. For example, Gannett, the well-known publisher of USA Today, entered into talks with the president of Colorado State to discuss a business partnership with their school paper. Partnerships with student publications and for-profit corporations are dangerous. Such deals will most likely serve to limit the leadership opportunities for student journalists and restrict the editorial autonomy of college newspapers. In January, a falling-out between the student government and newspaper at Montclair State University required the editors to suspend publication as the student-body representatives pulled the paper’s funding. A major concern was that funding was yanked primarily due to the paper’s criticisms of the student government. College administrations need to be sure that there is steady financial support for student newspapers on college campuses and that they have the freedom to report on any news they see fit—regardless of what is written about the people in authority. Yet, this year we were also reminded that the freedom of the press comes with serious responsibility. In February, a columnist in The Campus Press at the University of Colorado at Boulder published a racist piece that targeted Asian students. The fallout from this piece demonstrated the substantial power of news and media organizations on campuses to do ill.

Ultimately, in wielding the freedom of the press, students must continue to be bold while recognizing the need to be well-informed and responsible in what gets published on college campuses. The academic environment depends on it.