that "the actual situation is the opposite from the one advertised by Trump. These are not countries that pose a danger to the U.S. They are countries to which the U.S poses the risk, of instability and millions of displaced". Regarding the legality of the order, Peter Spiro indicated in an interview that there's a possibility that even if the courts accept the plenary power of the president, they will strike down the executive order on an equal protection basis. Although the Trump administration argues that the executive order serves some kind of counterterrorism purpose, the courts, according to Spiro, will see this argument as irrational. He cites the "more than a thousand foreign service officers" that say that the order does "not advance any counter-terror objective [and that] it actually detracts from national security values." Furthermore, the heartbreaking human stories of immigrants and refugees affected by the order will play a role in the courts' rulings. In the same interview, Anil Kalhan of the Thomas R. Kline School of Law agreed with Spiro's reasoning and added, "It is so clear that the order was not appropriately vetted within the executive branch before it was issued, and I think that will offend judicial sensibilities." Kalhan also said that he thinks that the protests against the order may convince the courts that they are acting in concert with public support and will therefore not have to worry about risking the court's legitimacy by not deferring to the executive branch. Both Spiro and Kalhan view the executive order as unconstitutional. The executive order left American colleges and universities scrambling amidst confusion over the full scope and extent of the order. Several universities, including Johns Hopkins University, the University of Virginia and George Washington University, told affected students and faculty members affected to avoid traveling abroad because of fears that they would be barred from reentering the country. The Association of American Universities's associate vice president for federal relations said that the ban was "very, very disruptive", particularly to graduate students engaging in research. University presidents and other higher education leaders "said the order could ultimately hurt the country's competitiveness if the best and brightest research scholars no longer want to study or work in the United States", weakening American preeminence in higher education. Many academics were barred entry and unable to present their work: Iranian neuroscientist Leila Akbari was barred from attending