S/U ???
What does this mean?
Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
I was a TA and later and RA, but the courses I TA’d were taught fully by the TAs and it would not have been physically possible for the professor in charge to teach them in person.
It was lab courses; we could have four groups running simultaneously, each with its TA. I guess if you have people doing chemistry in their kitchen with the teacher explaining via zoom you could theoretically have 400 of them doing it at the same time, but attending to the 400 troubles of 400 chickadees simultaneously and through zoom is kind of complicated.
Our credits were filled up with “self-guided research”. But that is self-guided by definition. It still needs access to equipment, depending on what is it you’re doing; I could have done the theoretical parts from any computer with a modem and sent the synthesized materials to be analyzed via courier, but the equipment needed for the organic chemistry wouldn’t have fit in my bathroom.
I suspect the big problem with the Trump administration and administrative law cases is the political appointees taking charge and deciding they don’t need to consult any of the professionals involved before bulling ahead with their plans.
they backed down and will go back to the rule from March that it’s OK for F-1 visa holders to take online classes.
That’s great news. Unnecessary drama and angst for students and colleges.
He didn’t specify aspersions from whom. 
Some posts in this thread aged badly. Especially since there was no new Executive Order nor a new law that that was passed in order to rescind this rule.
Right? Turns out the administration could just change its mind.
I’m sure the mea culpas will be along shortly.
And they were not required to implement this rule (law).
The point (at least mine) was never that the administration could choose not to enforce a rule, my point was that the non-enforcement was simply a choice, one that shouldn’t be allowed. Laws (and rules that follow them) should be crafted in ways that don’t allow selective enforcement, this leads to problems.
So no law or rule should ever, under any circumstances, have exceptions. That checks out. 
Right, so obviously, my post wasn’t directed at you.
That’s absurd. Zero tolerance policies are always bad policies. The rule was developed under one set of circumstances. The circumstances dramatically changed, so it makes perfect sense that enforcement changed as well. The rule itself doesn’t need a mechanism to foresee any possible circumstance as long as there is a process in place to deal with unforseen circumstances. Which there is and it was used.
Capricious or biased enforcement is a bad idea, of which this is not.
It will always be capricious or biased enforcement is a SUBJECTIVE matter, in which this is. In your opinion it is a bad idea to enforce this rule right now, in others not so much.
Want to eliminate that bias? Make it objective
Explain why the students should be punished for having done nothing wrong. The fact they were “in violation” was not due to any action on their part. Not one of them chose to go for an all online schedule of classes, it was the university that was going that direction for all students in response to a national health emergency.
Impossible, since one can’t control the world and it’s events. Judgment will be always needed, including in the crafting the objective laws you desire.
Mercy, empathy, judgment will always be needed in the enforcement of laws. Oversight, collaborative decision making, and a desire to serve the common good are the qualities we need in those making these decisions. Zero tolerance rules with no room for adaptation and responsiveness to unforseen circumstances are not the solution.
And it’s ok if at times I personally disagree with a policy decision or someone else does with one I approve of as long as there is a process that gets followed for making those decisions and a sense that decisions are being made for the common good. Allowing this exception to remain in force serves the common good and the potential for harm is small.
It’s a law (or a rule), not a suicide pact.