Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[Arctish]

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.

of·fer
/ˈôfər,ˈäfər/

verb
present or proffer (something) for (someone) to accept or reject as so desired.
"may I offer you a drink?"

noun
an expression of readiness to do or give something if desired.
"he had accepted Mallory's offer to buy him a drink"
<link>

If there's another definition of the word you'd like to use, please post it. I'm going with the one most commonly used where I live.

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.

I have no idea what you think is obfuscation on my part. You'll have to provide examples. But I do wonder if it has something to do with seeing things from different perspectives which makes one think the other is ignoring something in plain sight. I sometimes think that about your posts.

 

[TomC]

This thread is an interesting study of how people's biases influence their interpretation of words.

The "other exemption" rule specifically names BIPOC students as students who would be given an exemption based on their BIPOC status, if they want one. That isn't a reason available to white students. Cornell is discriminating by race.

I don't see Cornell has having said "would be given". Quite the opposite, they're clearly discouraging ideological requests and explaining why. They sure don't seem to be promising an exemption on those grounds to anyone.

There's a whiff of racism in the vague implication that only BIPOC would have such concerns. A WASP could request an exemption on the grounds of "I'm standing in solidarity with my oppressed brethren and sistren", I suppose.

But nobody is promised an exemption. You won't even get a medical exemption with just "I'm allergic to vaccination". You must produce serious documentation. Same with religious requests.

"Recognition of the concerns as valid" isn't the same as "request for exemptions being approved". It wouldn't surprise me if the Cornell staff already have a batch of pre-written, diplomatically worded, templates for rejecting applications for exemptions. They seem serious about protecting their students and staff, while trying to avoid stepping in a pile of woke bullshit.
Tom

 

[ruby sparks]

This thread is an interesting study of how people's biases influence their interpretation of words.

The "other exemption" rule specifically names BIPOC students as students who would be given an exemption based on their BIPOC status, if they want one. That isn't a reason available to white students. Cornell is discriminating by race.

I don't see Cornell has having said "would be given". Quite the opposite, they're clearly discouraging ideological requests and explaining why. They sure don't seem to be promising an exemption on those grounds to anyone.

There's a whiff of racism in the vague implication that only BIPOC would have such concerns. A WASP could request an exemption on the grounds of "I'm standing in solidarity with my oppressed brethren and sistren", I suppose.

But nobody is promised an exemption. You won't even get a medical exemption with just "I'm allergic to vaccination". You must produce serious documentation. Same with religious requests.

"Recognition of the concerns as valid" isn't the same as "request for exemptions being approved". It wouldn't surprise me if the Cornell staff already have a batch of pre-written, diplomatically worded, templates for rejecting applications for exemptions. They seem serious about protecting their students and staff, while trying to avoid stepping in a pile of woke bullshit.
Tom

That is probably true. I doubt Cornell wants anyone to apply on those grounds, and as you say, their main aim seems to be to negotiate the tricky woke issues. But at the same time, they explicitly decided to set out considered-valid reasons for applying for a BIPOC exemption. That's effectively an offer, subject to being assessed, and the statements make no sense any other way. We could do the dictionary definition quibbling thing, but the point is largely the same. It's also quite possible that during the deliberations, some member of some committee raised the issue.

I see it here now and again. Those who generally sympathise with something that some others see as controversial or objectionable feel the need to deny it's even happening, rather than agree it's happening, but support it if that's what they want to do. Colleges giving entrance preferences to BIPOC applicants is the classic example. If I had 50p for every time someone here who is not against AA tried to claim that wasn't even happening, I'd be writing this from a beach hotel.

 

[blastula]

If they didn't plan on giving any other exemptions, then there was no need or point in offering one at all. It's quite a stretch to claim they are offering an exemption they never intended on granting.

 

[TomC]

That's effectively an offer, subject to being assessed, and the statements make no sense any other way.

All I see is an offer to read a request. Not grant an exemption. An offer that is made to everyone.

But no promises.

That's the way I interpreted what I read, quoted from the Cornell website.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

To those confused by Cornell's response, an allegory:

Suppose a large portion of the American population - war vets, let's say - decided that they shouldn't be held responsible for income tax next year, not unreasonably feeling that having given their whole lives up for the country, an additional 10% of their income is just too much to ask. They are all planning to file for a total tax exemption of their own invention, exempting them entirely from taxation at all, and the IRS catches wind of this. They post a page on their wbesite which reads:

"It has come to our attantion that many POGs (Persons Owning Guns) are uncomfortable with the concept of income tax. We acknowledge your justifiable feelings of grievance, and thank you for your service. However, taxation ultimately benefits all of us, especially your fellow POGs, many of whom rely on tax-funded welfare programs to survive. While, like all citizens, you may file for an exemption at any time, please comply with existing tax law."​

Would you conclude that the IRS was planning to award a blanket exemption to vets? They didn't say they wouldn't, and they are giving lip service to the servicepersons' concerns. But they also didn't say they planned to. And they're... the IRS. So what do you think?

What if an outraged newspaper headline the next morning reads "IRS Says No To Taxing Vets!" and that was the first you heard of the matter, only reading the actual message days later in the middle of a forum argument. Would that change how you evaluate the situation?

 

[TomC]

If they didn't plan on giving any other exemptions, then there was no need or point in offering one at all. It's quite a stretch to claim they are offering an exemption they never intended on granting.

They didn't offer an exemption. The only offer was to read the requests.

But considering how much entitlement is out there, especially among the Woke, I quite understand the diplomatic verbage.

Suppose they'd posted something as clear as:
"With proper documentation, medical and religious exemptions will be granted. References to historical and cultural issues will be ignored."
Tom

 

[blastula]

If they didn't plan on giving any other exemptions, then there was no need or point in offering one at all. It's quite a stretch to claim they are offering an exemption they never intended on granting.

They didn't offer an exemption. The only offer was to read the requests.

But considering how much entitlement is out there, especially among the Woke, I quite understand the diplomatic verbage.

Suppose they'd posted something as clear as:
"With proper documentation, medical and religious exemptions will be granted. References to historical and cultural issues will be ignored."
Tom

Again, they could have said nothing in that case. They had no need to mention anything about it at all.

 

[TomC]

If they didn't plan on giving any other exemptions, then there was no need or point in offering one at all. It's quite a stretch to claim they are offering an exemption they never intended on granting.

They didn't offer an exemption. The only offer was to read the requests.

But considering how much entitlement is out there, especially among the Woke, I quite understand the diplomatic verbage.

Suppose they'd posted something as clear as:
"With proper documentation, medical and religious exemptions will be granted. References to historical and cultural issues will be ignored."
Tom

Again, they could have said nothing in that case. They had no need to mention anything about it at all.

You don't seem to know much about dealing with the entitled Woke.
Tom

 

[blastula]

To those confused by Cornell's response, an allegory:

Suppose a large portion of the American population - war vets, let's say - decided that they shouldn't be held responsible for income tax next year, not unreasonably feeling that having given their whole lives up for the country, an additional 10% of their income is just too much to ask. They are all planning to file for a total tax exemption of their own invention, exempting them entirely from taxation at all, and the IRS catches wind of this. They post a page on their wbesite which reads:

"It has come to our attantion that many POGs (Persons Owning Guns) are uncomfortable with the concept of income tax. We acknowledge your justifiable feelings of grievance, and thank you for your service. However, taxation ultimately benefits all of us, especially your fellow POGs, many of whom rely on tax-funded welfare programs to survive. While, like all citizens, you may file for an exemption at any time, please comply with existing tax law."​

Would you conclude that the IRS was planning to award a blanket exemption to vets? They didn't say they wouldn't, and they are giving lip service to the servicepersons' concerns. But they also didn't say they planned to. And they're... the IRS. So what do you think?

What if an outraged newspaper headline the next morning reads "IRS Says No To Taxing Vets!" and that was the first you heard of the matter, only reading the actual message days later in the middle of a forum argument. Would that change how you evaluate the situation?

Except there was no option to ask for an exemption until they just created one with the offer.

 

[laughing dog]

If they didn't plan on giving any other exemptions, then there was no need or point in offering one at all. It's quite a stretch to claim they are offering an exemption they never intended on granting.

There is a difference between granting an exemption to some requests and granting them to every single request.

Of course, it is possible that this offer is a preemptive strategy to get worried students to make a request and then to counsel/educate them to make an informed and rational decision.

 

[ruby sparks]

An offer that is made to everyone.

But an application on these particular grounds is only offered to BIPOC students, is it not?

 

[Politesse]

To those confused by Cornell's response, an allegory:

Suppose a large portion of the American population - war vets, let's say - decided that they shouldn't be held responsible for income tax next year, not unreasonably feeling that having given their whole lives up for the country, an additional 10% of their income is just too much to ask. They are all planning to file for a total tax exemption of their own invention, exempting them entirely from taxation at all, and the IRS catches wind of this. They post a page on their wbesite which reads:

"It has come to our attantion that many POGs (Persons Owning Guns) are uncomfortable with the concept of income tax. We acknowledge your justifiable feelings of grievance, and thank you for your service. However, taxation ultimately benefits all of us, especially your fellow POGs, many of whom rely on tax-funded welfare programs to survive. While, like all citizens, you may file for an exemption at any time, please comply with existing tax law."​

Would you conclude that the IRS was planning to award a blanket exemption to vets? They didn't say they wouldn't, and they are giving lip service to the servicepersons' concerns. But they also didn't say they planned to. And they're... the IRS. So what do you think?

What if an outraged newspaper headline the next morning reads "IRS Says No To Taxing Vets!" and that was the first you heard of the matter, only reading the actual message days later in the middle of a forum argument. Would that change how you evaluate the situation?

Except there was no option to ask for an exemption until they just created one with the offer.

Not true. As they themselves note, a student can request an exemption at any time. Cornell can't do anything to change that, it's th elegal right of their students. But they made no "offer" to do anything.

 

[ruby sparks]

Except there was no option to ask for an exemption until they just created one with the offer.

Exactly, and having identified valid criteria, specific to BIPOC, it is hard to see how they could then turn down applications based on them, even though they also, in tandem, tried to discourage applications on the basis they themselves set out.

 

[blastula]

Again, they could have said nothing in that case. They had no need to mention anything about it at all.

You don't seem to know much about dealing with the entitled Woke.
Tom

You don't know how to use Occam's razor.

 

[Politesse]

An offer that is made to everyone.

But an application on these particular grounds is only offered to BIPOC students, is it not?

You've made that up, though.

 

[blastula]

To those confused by Cornell's response, an allegory:

Suppose a large portion of the American population - war vets, let's say - decided that they shouldn't be held responsible for income tax next year, not unreasonably feeling that having given their whole lives up for the country, an additional 10% of their income is just too much to ask. They are all planning to file for a total tax exemption of their own invention, exempting them entirely from taxation at all, and the IRS catches wind of this. They post a page on their wbesite which reads:

"It has come to our attantion that many POGs (Persons Owning Guns) are uncomfortable with the concept of income tax. We acknowledge your justifiable feelings of grievance, and thank you for your service. However, taxation ultimately benefits all of us, especially your fellow POGs, many of whom rely on tax-funded welfare programs to survive. While, like all citizens, you may file for an exemption at any time, please comply with existing tax law."​

Would you conclude that the IRS was planning to award a blanket exemption to vets? They didn't say they wouldn't, and they are giving lip service to the servicepersons' concerns. But they also didn't say they planned to. And they're... the IRS. So what do you think?

What if an outraged newspaper headline the next morning reads "IRS Says No To Taxing Vets!" and that was the first you heard of the matter, only reading the actual message days later in the middle of a forum argument. Would that change how you evaluate the situation?

Except there was no option to ask for an exemption until they just created one with the offer.

Not true. As they themselves note, a student can request an exemption at any time. Cornell can't do anything to change that, it's th elegal right of their students. But they made no "offer" to do anything.

NOW they can, after they created this exemption. There was no exemption available to request before they came up with this one. Almost 200 posts in and you have still failed to do the reading.

 

[Politesse]

Not true. As they themselves note, a student can request an exemption at any time. Cornell can't do anything to change that, it's th elegal right of their students. But they made no "offer" to do anything.

NOW they can, after they created this exemption. There was no exemption available to request before they came up with this one. Almost 200 posts in and you have still failed to do the reading.

Err, no. A student can request an exemption from a medical requirement at any time. That's state law, not policy.

 

[ruby sparks]

An offer that is made to everyone.

But an application on these particular grounds is only offered to BIPOC students, is it not?

You've made that up, though.

I object to your accusation of lying. Please retract it.

 

[Politesse]

You've made that up, though.

I object to your accusation of lying. Please retract it.

You may not have lied, but you are imagining something that isn't there. There's no "offer".