Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[Arctish]

If you read the Cornell immunization requirements page blastula posted here, and read the document it links to in the "Other exemption" bullet point, you will see that Cornell is not granting exemptions to people because of their race. The university is making no promises about granting exemptions at all. It is explaining the policy and being pro-active in addressing what may cause some students to object.

Cornell is clearly working to overcome resistance to the new vaccination policy, not pander to it.

Except if it really meant they aren't granting exemptions to BIPOCs there is no reason for the "considering an exemption" part. And of course they aren't making promises to engage in racism, this is just to make it clear that they are willing to engage in racism.

Of course there is.

It's obvious to me that Cornell is telling everyone that everyone will be treated the same. No exceptions for BIPOC, except the same reasons anybody else might get one.

I agree that religious exemptions are ridiculous. If going to Cornell isn't worth a vaccination you aren't suited for such a rigorous environment anyways. But Cornell isn't anything like unique in this. It's all too common.

Bottom line is that "consider" doesn't mean "request". "Request" doesn't mean "grant". BIPOC are just as able to request an exemption as anybody else, but they've already been informed that political and sociological requests aren't going to granted.

Cornell used diplomatic language, but the message sure was clear to me.
Tom

Exactly.

The top of the first page informs students of the vaccination policy and that New York state law allows only two exemptions: medical reasons and religious belief.

The document then describes what a student needs to produce to apply for an exemption on those grounds. The last section is addressed to students who may be considering applying for an exemption based on personal or family history, or the history of mistreatment of their community. It does not offer them an exemption in addition to the two allowed by law. It acknowledges the legitimacy of their concern and argues in favor of vaccinations.



ETA: I think the problem lies with the university's use of the word "helpful".

The main page document says"

"Students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events, and may find this information helpful in considering an exemption"

At first glance it's reasonable to suppose Cornell is attempting to assist Black, Indigenous, and Persons of Color to succeed in gaining exemptions. But the text of the linked document doesn't do that. In fact, Cornell argues in favor of the vaccination program on that page.

I think the university meant "helpful" as in "help you understand why we're doing this and why it's actually a good thing". Also "help you accept the likely denial of your request by acknowledging you had valid reasons for making it, but the health needs of the student community are our greatest concern, and also state law doesn't permit exemptions on the grounds you cited".

It probably would have been better if Cornell had said

"Students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events, and may find this information helpful in understanding the reason for implementing this policy"

 

[blastula]

The top of the first page informs students of the vaccination policy and that New York state law allows only two exemptions: medical reasons and religious belief.

Arctish, you're still missing that that whole FAQ except for the bottom paragraph only applies to the MMR vaccine. There is no state requirement for the flu vaccine. Cornell is requiring the flu vaccine on their own, not because of state law. The "other" exemption applies to the flu vaccination only, as it explicitly says, "Other exemption (for *FLU VACCINATION* requirement only)." The MMR vaccination still only allows medical or religious exemptions.

But I will grant that it's possible to read that bottom paragraph as saying anybody can request an exemption for unstated "other concerns / extenuating circumstances," and that then they specify reasons why BIPOCs might want to request one, but are not intending to mean that only BIPOCs can request one. But still they don't offer similarly helpful reasons that anybody else might want to request one, they only do that for BIPOCs. The page is written very poorly.

I also wonder if there had even been anybody wanting exemptions in the first place, whether they created a solution for a problem that didn't exist.

 

[Metaphor]

The top of the first page informs students of the vaccination policy and that New York state law allows only two exemptions: medical reasons and religious belief.

Arctish, you're still missing that that whole FAQ except for the bottom paragraph only applies to the MMR vaccine. There is no state requirement for the flu vaccine. Cornell is requiring the flu vaccine on their own, not because of state law. The "other" exemption applies to the flu vaccination only, as it explicitly says, "Other exemption (for *FLU VACCINATION* requirement only)." The MMR vaccination still only allows medical or religious exemptions.

But I will grant that it's possible to read that bottom paragraph as saying anybody can request an exemption for unstated "other concerns / extenuating circumstances," and that then they specify reasons why BIPOCs might want to request one, but are not intending to mean that only BIPOCs can request one. But still they don't offer similarly helpful reasons that anybody else might want to request one, they only do that for BIPOCs. The page is written very poorly.

I also wonder if there had even been anybody wanting exemptions in the first place, whether they created a solution for a problem that didn't exist.

I know people who hate needles (including the wimpy needles they use for flu vaccination), and they would not get a shot if they didn't have to. Also, most students at university are in their late teens and 20s and probably in the best health they'll ever be. Maybe some people just could not be bothered -- but that isn't going to cut it as an exemption reason, I imagine.

 

[ruby sparks]

They weren't being offered a special reason for requesting an exemption.

Reading all the statements from Cornell that have been posted here, I think it's sufficiently clear they effectively and indeed perhaps literally were.

I live in the United States of America, a place where medical doctors performed experiments on blacks without consent.....

Yes, and with apologies for not addressing your whole post, I already know all that. I broadly understand the background and the reasons. And as far as I'm aware, such things weren't just restricted to the USA.

To repeat myself, I'm just saying the opportunity to request an exemption on such grounds was being offered, for precisely those special reasons. As I've said, whether (or not) those are good reasons to make that offer is a slightly different question. But I don't see sufficient grounds for saying the offer was not being made. I find that a very odd claim indeed, in the circumstances, and the interpretations to the contrary bordering on apologetics.

 

[ruby sparks]

I also wonder if there had even been anybody wanting exemptions in the first place, whether they created a solution for a problem that didn't exist.

The problem, of course, doesn't have to exist, for there nevertheless to be potential objections (in principle) to and accusations about a policy that would be otherwise generally mandatory. It is not hard to imagine that there could have been objections, in the current socio-political climate. My guess is that Cornell wanted to protect themselves from that possible eventuality. And of course it's also possible that some students may have wanted to request an exemption on such grounds. In other words, I think Cornell introduced them just in case.

 

[Arctish]

To repeat myself, I'm just saying the opportunity to request an exemption on such grounds was being offered, for precisely those special reasons. As I've said, whether (or not) those are good reasons to make that offer is a slightly different question. But I don't see sufficient grounds for saying the offer was not being made. I find that a very odd claim indeed, in the circumstances, and the interpretations to the contrary bordering on apologetics.

Calling it an offer implies Cornell was soliciting requests for exemptions, and was going to rubber stamp requests based on the 'special reasons' it discussed. But that's not what the text indicates.

I think it would be more accurate to call it an attempt to head off those requests by presenting a counterargument, while also acknowledging that valid concerns exist in the BIPOC community.

Perhaps we can agree that it was poorly worded outreach.

 

[ruby sparks]

Calling it an offer implies Cornell was soliciting requests for exemptions, and was going to rubber stamp requests based on the 'special reasons' it discussed.

No, calling it an offer does not necessarily suggest that (even if it may be the case, because I think they would have a bit of a job turning down requests on that basis in light of their statements).

I am at a loss as to the reasons for your reluctance to call it what it effectively is, an offer, specifically, an offer of special grounds (the ones suggested) for certain groups, on which an application for exemption could be made. I think you are doing contortions to see it otherwise. But I am not surprised; this sort of obfuscation is what I have come to often expect from you on certain topics.

They have effectively declared the stated grounds valid in principle, even if they are at the same time keen to try to dissuade potential applicants from making the requests. I agree it's a balancing act, but one end of it is obviously offering certain grounds to certain groups as being valid.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree it's a balancing act, but one end of it is obviously offering certain grounds to certain groups as being valid.

These certain grounds are simply not an actual option for certain groups. There is no indication that if other certain groups could show they had unique grounds that they would not be considered.

Would it be discrimination against men if a medical practice offered free cervical exams?

 

[ruby sparks]

I agree it's a balancing act, but one end of it is obviously offering certain grounds to certain groups as being valid.

These certain grounds are simply not an actual option for certain groups. There is no indication that if other certain groups could show they had unique grounds that they would not be considered.

Would it be discrimination against men if a medical practice offered free cervical exams?

Personally, I have not mentioned discrimination against whites, so I don't think I personally need to answer that question, just yet.

I have so far only been at pains not to be denialist about the facts of the matter, about what Cornell are effectively doing, that's all.

Whether it can reasonably be called discrimination against whites or not, I don't know, but personally, I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. I see it instead as a discrimination in favour of another group, for stated reasons. Whether the reasons are good enough, to offer the possibility of exemption, I don't know, but I can at least understand them. Personally, I'd be inclined, all things considered, to consider them not good enough reasons, in this particular case, to do with dangerous infections within a society. As I said before, I think it's woke (or better to say precautions against possible criticisms) gone a wee bit too far, in this case.

I also think it is a pity, if, in 'Metaphor's threads' (threads started by him) we only treat each other's comments in relation to metaphor's position, instead of our own.

 

[blastula]

I agree it's a balancing act, but one end of it is obviously offering certain grounds to certain groups as being valid.

These certain grounds are simply not an actual option for certain groups. There is no indication that if other certain groups could show they had unique grounds that they would not be considered.

Would it be discrimination against men if a medical practice offered free cervical exams?

Perhaps.

Stop sex discrimination in health plan costs - CNN

 

[ruby sparks]

These certain grounds are simply not an actual option for certain groups.

No. They are exactly that.

There is no indication that if other certain groups could show they had unique grounds that they would not be considered.

A hypothetical 'other situation' does not change anything for this one. What on earth is wrong with your reasoning?

Incidentally and in passing, as far as I can see (I stand to be corrected) there is another situation, a potential religious exemption. And the BIPOC one is in some ways similar in principle, because it is for a particular group with particular (considered valid) reasons. I am not suggesting both are equally reasonable, obviously.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree it's a balancing act, but one end of it is obviously offering certain grounds to certain groups as being valid.

These certain grounds are simply not an actual option for certain groups.

No. They are exactly that. A hypothetical 'other situation' does not change that. What on earth is wrong with you?

White people were not subjected to covert medical experiments by their government. It is stupid to claiming it is discrimination to not offer them an exemption that is not possible for them to use. If you cannot grasp that simple concept, rational discussion is impossible.

The "other exemption" is not limited to the one situation. There is nothing in the policy for any student of any race to request an exemption of any reason.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is nothing in the policy for any student of any race to request an exemption of any reason.

Wow.

That's all I can think of to say.

 

[Toni]

These certain grounds are simply not an actual option for certain groups.

No. They are exactly that.

There is no indication that if other certain groups could show they had unique grounds that they would not be considered.

A hypothetical 'other situation' does not change anything for this one. What on earth is wrong with your reasoning?

Incidentally and in passing, as far as I can see (I stand to be corrected) there is another situation, a potential religious exemption. And the BIPOC one is in some ways similar in principle, because it is for a particular group with particular (considered valid) reasons. I am not suggesting both are equally reasonable, obviously.

What is wrong with you? Why are you continuing this false narrative that Cornell intends to offer BIPOC students wavers from vaccination based on race? Multiple people in this thread have read and quoted the actual Cornell policy and statements to you. Why do you insist on substituting your own —or rather, borrowed or shared fantasies?

 

[ruby sparks]

No. They are exactly that. A hypothetical 'other situation' does not change that. What on earth is wrong with you?

White people were not subjected to covert medical experiments by their government. It is stupid to claiming it is discrimination to not offer them an exemption that is not possible for them to use. If you cannot grasp that simple concept, rational discussion is impossible.

It IS discrimination, but not against whites, It is clearly and obviously positive discrimination in favour of BIPOC, for reasons given and considered valid. That is something that should not even be legitimately up for grabs among rational people.

Discrimination, by the way, not racism, imo.

 

[laughing dog]

No. They are exactly that. A hypothetical 'other situation' does not change that. What on earth is wrong with you?

White people were not subjected to covert medical experiments by their government. It is stupid to claiming it is discrimination to not offer them an exemption that is not possible for them to use. If you cannot grasp that simple concept, rational discussion is impossible.

It IS discrimination, but not against whites, It is clearly and obviously positive discrimination in favour of BIPOC, for reasons given and considered valid. That is something that should not even be legitimately up for grabs among rational people.

Your response is consistent with my observation that "It is stupid to claiming it is discrimination to not offer them an exemption that is not possible for them to use. "

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They weren't being offered a special reason for requesting an exemption. Cornell was preemptively addressing a likely reason BIPOC might give for requesting one, and presenting an argument against it.

But note that it does not come out and say that such exemptions will not be granted.

The top of the first page informs students of the vaccination policy and that New York state law allows only two exemptions: medical reasons and religious belief.

The document contradicts itself. Thus showing that it says this does not say that that's what it really means.

I suggest you look up the If by whisky speech.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know people who hate needles (including the wimpy needles they use for flu vaccination), and they would not get a shot if they didn't have to. Also, most students at university are in their late teens and 20s and probably in the best health they'll ever be. Maybe some people just could not be bothered -- but that isn't going to cut it as an exemption reason, I imagine.

I hate needles also, no matter how tiny--but it doesn't stop me from getting vaccinations. I just have to be careful of how they do it to avoid any risk of fainting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It IS discrimination, but not against whites, It is clearly and obviously positive discrimination in favour of BIPOC, for reasons given and considered valid. That is something that should not even be legitimately up for grabs among rational people.

Discrimination, by the way, not racism, imo.

Against whites / for non-whites are simply two sides of the same coin.

And it's a decision clearly based on race without valid reason--it's racism.

 

[Trausti]

It IS discrimination, but not against whites, It is clearly and obviously positive discrimination in favour of BIPOC, for reasons given and considered valid. That is something that should not even be legitimately up for grabs among rational people.

Discrimination, by the way, not racism, imo.

Against whites / for non-whites are simply two sides of the same coin.

And it's a decision clearly based on race without valid reason--it's racism.

Would have thought that the 20th Century taught us it is never okay to treat people differently based on their racial group. Guess not.