Last June, the country was captivated by the arrest of 10 Russian spies, a tale complete with coded messages and buried caches of money that was reminiscent of Cold War fiction (albeit lacking in actual secrets). Yet they were not the only spies uncovered in recent years—a couple working for Florida International University pled guilty to charges of spying for Cuba in 2006. Unlike the Russian example, this case had arguably serious consequences, chiefly for Floridian academics and students who, shortly thereafter, were prohibited from traveling to Cuba and four other nations deemed by the U.S. State Department to be “state sponsors of terrorism.” This ban on academic travel impeded—and continues to impede—a valuable flow of ideas between Americans and those in nations with which we most need to communicate.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently loosened the strictures of the initial law, ruling that Florida could not prevent people from traveling if they acquired private funding. However, it upheld the state’s right to prevent travel with public funds to the five countries in question. The list comprises Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and North Korea, despite President George W. Bush’s removal of the latter in 2008.

As it now stands, this law remains harmful to the intellectual and cultural exchange between nations that is crucial to fostering growth, tolerance, and progress. It is particularly vital for those countries with significant cultural and political differences to learn about one another, since increased knowledge often leads to greater understanding and acceptance. Academic dialogue can serve as a special type of diplomacy, which is even more necessary in light of the fact that conventional political means have largely failed to improve American relations with these five states. The travel ban only increases mutual mistrust and animosity, benefiting no one.

Professors and students should furthermore not be bound by the ideological and political considerations that drive and define the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The continuing debate over North Korea’s inclusion, even in recent years since the law’s initial passage, illustrates the political subjectivities involved in applying these labels. Particularly considering Florida’s large Cuban community, its residents should not be held hostage by the vagaries of changing politics.

Especially given that other states do not impose the same restrictions, Florida’s academics who rely on public funding are unfairly disadvantaged by not being able to travel to the same places as their peers. Since no travel ban exists on the national level, Florida’s law alone does little to ameliorate the problem its proponents hope it will address, while the few professors and students to whom this law applies are deeply harmed. The legislation was likely introduced in response to the 2006 spy scandal, but such a limited measure can ultimately do little to solve the much larger problem of foreign espionage.

While the five countries named clearly present difficult foreign policy challenges, cutting off academic ties will only worsen the situation, ultimately harming the international cross-cultural dialogue is inherently valuable, and we hope to see it prioritized across all 50 states.