When I applied for a PhD program in the U.S., I was attracted to the fact that American universities have been unmatched as drivers of knowledge and innovation – from the moon landing to the Internet to chemotherapy. This prestige dates back to the robust government investment in university research based on merit, with minimal political oversight since the post-World War II era.
In 1945, commissioned by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wartime science advisor Vannevar Bush authored Science, The Endless Frontier, making the case that federal support for basic research in universities was essential for national security, economic growth, and public health and welfare. At the time, a large pool of global talent — including Jewish exiles who fled Nazi Germany and Austria — dramatically boosted America's scientific prowess.
The U.S. has a longstanding reputation as the “land of the free” because its population is entitled to stand up for the values that matter to them, and the “home of the brave” because people here are willing to stand up for causes that resonate with them, regardless of their background or public presence. At the core of this promise is equal opportunity, granted by the Constitution that every human being has dignity and a right to live their life to the fullest. Yet, while I am proud to attend the first modern American research university, I see a crisis of these freedoms, values and equal opportunities in the U.S. today.
First: freedom. No one could say it better than Pope Saint John Paul II: “Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” In other words, freedom is not license — doing whatever one wants — but the use of our will to do what we ought in pursuit of the good. To do what we ought, we must first differentiate what is right and wrong. This is why we need the law. While we can individually decide what is right and wrong for ourselves, our judgement can be obscured by our emotions and biases, which can lead to flawed reasoning and decisions. Through the law, we uphold the integrity of truth and exercise our judgement to align with objective reality.
When Cicero, greatest of Rome’s jurists and philosophers in the law, stated “the safety of the people shall be the Highest Law,” he highlighted that the ultimate purpose of the law is the common good. Further, Theodore Roosevelt said, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.” Therefore, I argue that freedom and the law are inextricably linked in a virtuous cycle: To exercise our freedom to do what we ought, we need to respect the law that helps us distinguish right from wrong; and in return, by obeying the law, we collectively protect each other's freedom to attain the common good.
Second: values. It is one’s values that inform someone’s way of thinking. As someone who personally values the rule of law and democracy, I worry when any political leader — regardless of their party — declares themselves to be above the law, or states that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” That attitude disrespects the rule of law and the separation of powers – executive, legislative and judicial – integral to democracy.
I love my American friends, but outside academia, sometimes I find it harder to have a healthy, objective debate about U.S. policy issues with them than with non-Americans. Too often, conversations slip into focusing on party over country. For example, when I once expressed concerns about billionaires like Elon Musk influencing politics and making a false claim about USAID that only 10% of USAID funds reach their intended recipients, a friend countered by asking what I thought about other billionaires like George Soros supporting progressive groups. But this misses the point. Raising a parallel example does not answer the concern at hand. This kind of whataboutism is exhausting and fruitless. This is why values matter: Without them, debates dissolve into partisanship rather than pursuing truth.
We might value loyalty to family, friends, employers or political parties, but what matters most is the right order of our loyalties. If loyalty requires violating justice and truth, justice and truth still must come first. If my closest friend committed a crime, I personally would have a greater loyalty to justice and truth than to her, because I need to do what I ought — to pursue the good — through obedience to the law. When loyalty overrides justice and truth, it ceases to be a virtue and becomes a vice or “false idol.” Our values shape our judgment, and institutions are built on the judgments of individuals.
As my PhD committee member, Professor Tom Pepinsky, writes: “The root of the problem in U.S. politics is a crisis of values. Without common values, institutions are just expressions of power.”
As someone who values equal opportunity, meritocracy and fairness, I was deeply disturbed by a recent White House proclamation proposing a $100,000 fee for skilled foreign worker visas (H-1B). Equally troubling is the American Tech Workforce Act, proposed by Congressman Jim Banks, which would end the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. OPT allows international students to stay in the U.S. for one or two years — depending on their fields — after graduating from American universities. For many, OPT is the bridge to eventually being hired on an H-1B visa.
The $100,000 visa application fee is intended to encourage U.S. employers to prioritize American workers and protect American jobs. But this argument is self-defeating for two reasons. First, the U.S. job market has always been open to both American and foreign workers, based on values of meritocracy and fairness. This openness does not harm Americans. On the contrary, since the introduction of H-1B visa by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, the U.S. job market has drawn talent like Elon Musk and countless others who came to the U.S. on H-1B visas and went on to build companies such as SpaceX and Tesla, strengthening the U.S. economy.
Second, raising costs for employers will only make it harder to retain global talent. Skilled foreign workers may instead choose countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, South Korea or China, which are currently easing visa requirements and welcoming foreign workers — including academics and digital experts — to drive growth.
If the $100,000 fee for the H-1B visa goes unchallenged, and if Banks’ proposed American Tech Workforce Act passes, America’s longstanding legacy as “the land of the free and the home of the brave” will erode. Undermining equal opportunity for all, including skilled foreign workers, contradicts the very values the U.S. claims to stand for.
Speaking on behalf of international students in the U.S. — a minority group whose voices often go unheard in American policy debates — I invite you to call your elected senators and representatives on the telephone and express your thoughts to them.
These individuals are the people who need to hear from you the most. During the summer of 2023, I had a roommate from Iowa who worked in reception on Capitol Hill and received phone calls directed to one of Iowa's House representatives. She reported what phone calls she received in a day, passing on the citizen's voice to the representative. Thus, while we cannot guarantee your elected senators and representatives would necessarily agree with you, we can be sure that they listen to you.
The ability to ignore politics is privilege in action. One’s race, background, wealth, ability, socioeconomic status or national origin can shield one from being affected by policies that may harm others. As a Christian Catholic and an Indonesian, I see myself as a witness of hope in this Jubilee Year of 2025 designated by Pope Francis as a time for Pilgrims of Hope. We would not do hard things if we did not have hope. Hope is a fighting virtue. It takes hope to act. Knowing what is right matters — but acting on that knowledge is what makes the difference.
Deviana Dewi is a PhD candidate in International Development at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. Her dissertation examines the politics of child malnutrition policy in Indonesia. Originally from Purwakarta, Indonesia, she is a first-generation college student who has lived in four countries and studies how governance and political economy shape health and development outcomes.
