You can't just sue because you are displeased with something - you need to have suffered, or will suffer direct harm from the thing(this is called locus standi). I'm guessing OP is saying that Harvard/MIT would not be harmed from this, only the students would be harmed(so they would need to be the ones to sue, not the college).
It kind of makes sense - if everything is online courses, it doesn't matter to Harvard whether the students are at an apartment in Cambridge St or in the middle of the Mongolian steppe, as long as you have internet access.
On the other hand, if students are deciding to attend some other university(say, one in their home country) and Harvard can show that harms them, then they would have standing
> It kind of makes sense - if everything is online courses, it doesn't matter to Harvard whether the students are at an apartment in Cambridge St or in the middle of the Mongolian steppe, as long as you have internet access.
It makes a massive difference.
1. Students need good internet access, which a lot of them don't have in third world countries.
2. Students can't be expected to attend lectures and participate in class when they are in an opposite timezone (i.e. all of India and China).
It's a pretty easy decision for all of these students to just skip a semester rather than pay ridiculous tuition and not even be allowed to stay on campus, hence causing problems for the university.
