Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[TomC]

No you aren't. You either skipped right past the post upthread that mentioned specifically black people being singled out for medical experimentation and otherwise exploited in society and sometimes by the medical profession or you simply do not believe history.

I don't fall into either of those categories. I do know the history. But is possibly the only thing I agree with Metaphor about in this thread.

What was done to the Tuskegee Airmen was unconscionably vile. Everyone with a shred of decency recognizes this. Including us Wipepo.

Refusing modern medicine because of historical injustice remains irrational, for everyone regardless of phenotype. It's a little hard to logically justify refusing a vaccine exemption request from anybody on such irrational grounds if you'll give them on the similarly irrational religious grounds. But religious exemptions have precedent in state law, so I see them as different.

But yeah, if BIPOC are given a pass on irrational requests but WASP are not, it's racist.
Tom

 

[Toni]

No you aren't. You either skipped right past the post upthread that mentioned specifically black people being singled out for medical experimentation and otherwise exploited in society and sometimes by the medical profession or you simply do not believe history.

I don't fall into either of those categories. I do know the history. But is possibly the only thing I agree with Metaphor about in this thread.

What was done to the Tuskegee Airmen was unconscionably vile. Everyone with a shred of decency recognizes this. Including us Wipepo.

Refusing modern medicine because of historical injustice remains irrational, for everyone regardless of phenotype. It's a little hard to logically justify refusing a vaccine exemption request from anybody on such irrational grounds if you'll give them on the similarly irrational religious grounds. But religious exemptions have precedent in state law, so I see them as different.

But yeah, if BIPOC are given a pass on irrational requests but WASP are not, it's racist.
Tom

Again: BIPOC persons are NOT being given an exemption from vaccination. Cornell simply addressed a possible source of concern for BIPOC.

I would like to point out that the grievous harm done to BIPOC through US history could be better seen as being historical wrongs if (largely white) people did not continue to see BIPOC as threatening, criminal, dangerous, stronger, more mature than they are and more impervious to pain—all issues in society at large and well documented within the medical community. If society wants the trust of BIPOC persons, then society needs to start acting trustworthy.

 

[Toni]

The wording could be generously read as offering an exemption to anyone with "extenuating circumstances," and then giving as an example one based on BIPOC history.

No offense, but you have it backwards...
That is not "generous". It is a plain reading of the text. It is "disingenuous" to read it otherwise (as the OP and linked article does".

Exactly.

 

[laughing dog]

There is ZERO evidence that Cornell gives BIPOC students an exemption that is not given to white students.

I would like Cornell to clarify its policy. Of course, there's zero evidence because there's zero data about who was and wasn't given exemptions and Cornell, I imagine, is going to keep it that way.

I imagine Cornell University administration would clarify its policy when they become aware of confusion in its intended audience. Perhaps the lack of clarification to date signifies the intended audience is not as confused as you appear.

 

[TomC]

No you aren't. You either skipped right past the post upthread that mentioned specifically black people being singled out for medical experimentation and otherwise exploited in society and sometimes by the medical profession or you simply do not believe history.

I don't fall into either of those categories. I do know the history. But is possibly the only thing I agree with Metaphor about in this thread.

What was done to the Tuskegee Airmen was unconscionably vile. Everyone with a shred of decency recognizes this. Including us Wipepo.

Refusing modern medicine because of historical injustice remains irrational, for everyone regardless of phenotype. It's a little hard to logically justify refusing a vaccine exemption request from anybody on such irrational grounds if you'll give them on the similarly irrational religious grounds. But religious exemptions have precedent in state law, so I see them as different.

But yeah, if BIPOC are given a pass on irrational requests but WASP are not, it's racist.
Tom

Again: BIPOC persons are NOT being given an exemption from vaccination. Cornell simply addressed a possible source of concern for BIPOC.

Again, I agree. Probably.
I don't know of anybody getting an exemption for any reason. They probably will, since medical exemptions are quite rational and religious exemptions are found in state law. Nothing in the website promises BIPOC anything but a reading of their request, and everybody gets that.

I would like to point out that the grievous harm done to BIPOC through US history could be better seen as being historical wrongs if (largely white) people did not continue to see BIPOC as threatening, criminal, dangerous, stronger, more mature than they are and more impervious to pain—all issues in society at large and well documented within the medical community. If society wants the trust of BIPOC persons, then society needs to start acting trustworthy.

You are distinguishing between "society" and BIPOC?

That's pretty racist. I prefer to relate to "The Family of Humanity", rather than identity politics. Especially when it comes to problems like infectious illness. Whether you consider phenotype important or not, viruses don't.

Everyone needs to take the precautions available in the modern world.
Tom

 

[TomC]

There is ZERO evidence that Cornell gives BIPOC students an exemption that is not given to white students.

I would like Cornell to clarify its policy. Of course, there's zero evidence because there's zero data about who was and wasn't given exemptions and Cornell, I imagine, is going to keep it that way.

I imagine Cornell University administration would clarify its policy when they become aware of confusion in its intended audience. Perhaps the lack of clarification to date signifies the intended audience is not as confused as you appear.

Exactly!
Cornell's intended audience was incoming students and staff.
Not those of us on a tiny forum called TalkFreeThought.

People at Cornell can ask for clarification of anything about their official policies they're unsure about.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

No: the point is not extremely clear. It isn't clear at all. Cornell's page is poorly written, and Arctish's rewrite has not resolved that. If it is the case that other exemptions for BIPOC will not be considered solely on the basis of 'historical mistrust', then Cornell has introduced confusion with its desperate desire to signal its virtue.

If one is searching high and low for a reason to feel victimized by efforts to deal with genuine historic wrongs in America, if, indeed one is from Australia and does not have the clue that white people in America have about how genuinely historic that is, one can, indeed, find this unclear if one insists. The majority of Cornell students are educated enough to understand this policy and why it is written the way it is.

 

[Toni]

Again: BIPOC persons are NOT being given an exemption from vaccination. Cornell simply addressed a possible source of concern for BIPOC.

Again, I agree. Probably.
I don't know of anybody getting an exemption for any reason. They probably will, since medical exemptions are quite rational and religious exemptions are found in state law. Nothing in the website promises BIPOC anything but a reading of their request, and everybody gets that.

I would like to point out that the grievous harm done to BIPOC through US history could be better seen as being historical wrongs if (largely white) people did not continue to see BIPOC as threatening, criminal, dangerous, stronger, more mature than they are and more impervious to pain—all issues in society at large and well documented within the medical community. If society wants the trust of BIPOC persons, then society needs to start acting trustworthy.

You are distinguishing between "society" and BIPOC?

That's pretty racist. I prefer to relate to "The Family of Humanity", rather than identity politics. Especially when it comes to problems like infectious illness. Whether you consider phenotype important or not, viruses don't.

Everyone needs to take the precautions available in the modern world.
Tom

Society. Yes, society at large. Of course society includes BIPOC but historically, BIPOC have not been treated as equals in society and in some respects are not. To ignore this is to me, pretty racist.

I am under the impression that you are one of those people who 'do not see color.' For myself, I find it impossible to not notice color any more than I notice height or eye color or gender or any other physical characteristic. When I look at a person who is dressed in a certain way, I do tend to make some assumptions. A person in a police uniform, for instance, I will assume is indeed a police officer. If I see someone in a white lab coat, I will read their name tag to see if they are a doctor, nurse, PA, nursing assistant, laboratory tech, etc. I assume, unless this is a costume party, that they are working in a medical field. I'm guessing you make similar assumptions as well.

A lot of people see a woman in a white lab coat and assume she's a nurse. Even if her name tag reads Doctor. A lot of people, knowing where I worked, assume I am a nurse but I'm definitely not a nurse. I worked in a lab. But being female, I'm assumed to be a nurse by a lot of people. I won't deny that I've gotten out of at least one traffic ticket because the officer who pulled me over saw my word ID badge laying on the seat next to me and assumed I was on my way to save a life.

All of us make assumptions about people we see based on what is clearly visible. Some people assume a black person is poor or has addiction issues or has a criminal record. There is documented bias in the medical profession that demonstrates that black persons' symptoms, especially of pain, are often minimized and outright discounted, regardless of the patient's education, income or even profession. Black physicians report being treated as though they were drug seeking if they come in for an injury. Venus Williams famously documents how close she came to losing her life during childbirth because her physicians would not believe her when she described symptoms. There are hundreds and hundred and hundreds of such examples.

Women in general are less treated for pain than are men. Their symptoms of an impending or actual heart attack are more likely to be ignored or overlooked because they are women.

The truth is that in the US and much of the world, most of current medical practice is predicated on the patient being a relatively young white male--because that's traditionally who were doctors and who traditionally served as subjects in data collection.

The absolute truth is that black persons are more likely to be seen as criminal regardless of how they are dressed, their age, their income level, their education level, their profession.

Claiming that one 'doesn't see color' is not the same thing as saying that one treats everyone with the same dignity and respect, regardless of color of skin. I suspect you mean the second: you treat everyone the same, regardless of color.

 

[blastula]

The wording could be generously read as offering an exemption to anyone with "extenuating circumstances," and then giving as an example one based on BIPOC history.

No offense, but you have it backwards...
That is not "generous". It is a plain reading of the text. It is "disingenuous" to read it otherwise (as the OP and linked article does".

Exactly.

Not at all, I wasn't the only one who saw it as that at best it was poorly written. The media articles posted in the OP have shown that from the beginning.

And you're the last one to talk about misreading since you'd been reading the wrong page from the beginning.

 

[blastula]

It isn't in dispute that anyone can request an 'other' exemption.

Yes, it was, I disputed it myself. And someone else has claimed there was no exemption on offer at all.

And oh yeah, even the articles you posted yourself in the OP disputed it.

 

[Toni]

Exactly.

Not at all, I wasn't the only one who saw it as that at best it was poorly written. The media articles posted in the OP have shown that from the beginning.

And you're the last one to talk about misreading since you'd been reading the wrong page from the beginning.

I'm sorry. I got distracted and posted a response to the wrong comment. Too little sleep/too many distractions. I'm not sure how I did that but I did. My apologies.


What I meant was that YOU were/are exactly correct. As I've also pointed out repeatedly, the OP and linked article are wrongly interpreting Cornell's actual policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see. Not only have you objectively and correctly judged that the point is clear, you also speak with authority on the subjective experience of Cornell students reading that webpage.

It is clear to at least 3 posters it this thread.
So the claim that "it does not mean it is not clear to others" is objective and correct. The fact something is not clear to you does not mean it is not clear to others. It would take an incredible amount of arrogance to think that and to come up with an idiotic straw man about my authority on the subjective experience of Cornell students reading that webpage.

And multiple posters on here read it the other way, also. Three votes on your side doesn't prove the case.

 

[Gun Nut]

Exactly.

Not at all, I wasn't the only one who saw it as that at best it was poorly written. The media articles posted in the OP have shown that from the beginning.

And you're the last one to talk about misreading since you'd been reading the wrong page from the beginning.

What I think you may have seen as badly written was the article that misrepresented the policy as if black people automatically get excluded because they are black, not what is in the university's policy statement... that ANYBODY can ask for an exemption, and being historically suspicious of vaccinations because you are part of a group once targeted for unethical medial experiments is simply one example of an acceptable reason.

That said, I disagree with the policy even though it does not do what the OP linked article falsely claims it does. In my opinion, the only acceptable reason for getting an exception to a public health policy is a medical reason.
Basically, if you don't have AIDS or life threatening allergies to the vax, then you have no valid claim for exception.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After further research, I think I can settle this now, and in favor of the view that the exemption is offered to everyone.

Here's is the archived page from 8-28-20, which is the earliest I found with the flu exemption.



Notice that it doesn't include the BIPOC language at all, so it was at first offered to everyone.

Further, here is the page on 9-2-20



That's the earliest page available with BIPOC language, and notice that it starts with "for example" which further confirms that BIPOC history was only intended as one possible exemption reason.

That's how they should have left the page, but some dunce decided to change it with the confusing language it has now. I give them a D- for this change. They should come see me after class.

Thank you for doing the research and posting your findings.

I agree that the earlier versions were better than the one we've been discussing. Perhaps Cornell will revise it again.

Alternate interpretation--the original version didn't make it clear enough that BIPOC was a reason for an exemption.

 

[Metaphor]

Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
.... I'm struggling to understand what kind of experience is exclusive to a particular race and is so generalisable that everyone of that race is rational to fear it and nobody of any other race has any business entertaining the possibility.

No you aren't. You either skipped right past the post upthread that mentioned specifically black people being singled out for medical experimentation and otherwise exploited in society and sometimes by the medical profession or you simply do not believe history.

Here's one link to one of the most infamous examples:

https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/


Moreover, you are yet again, misrepresenting the words and situation to suit your own bias. No one has ever suggested that ALL BIPOC are suspicious of the medical community. Cornell merely acknowledged that some in those communities are suspicious because of historical exploitation by the medical community and by society in general.

Do you wake up every morning wondering how dishonest you can be that day? Like, let's see if I can beat yesterday''s record?

Arctish said:

Suppose a white student requests an exemption based on a personal experience that white people sometimes have and BIPOC persons never do. Would granting it be acceptable, or not?

And I answered:

I'm struggling to understand what kind of experience is exclusive to a particular race and is so generalisable that everyone of that race is rational to fear it and nobody of any other race has any business entertaining the possibility.

First, even if it were true that black people and only black people had been historically exploited by the government for experiments, that would not justify an exemption to the IPOC in BIPOC. But it simply isn't true. Race and sex were no barrier to unethical and unconsented US experimentation on humans.

Second, Henrietta Lacks was not treated any more or less unethically than any other patient would have been in the 1950s. She was singled out because she had some remarkable cells. I have no idea why you would even have linked me to that case.

I did not suggest all BIPOC are suspicious of the medical community. You can tell I didn't say it because the words do not appear. I said that for a race-based exemption to be reasonable, having the fear would need to be rational for a person of that race (unless Cornell give exemptions for irrational fears, in which case race needn't come into it--mentioning you have a fear would be enough).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is ZERO evidence that Cornell gives BIPOC students an exemption that is not given to white students.

I would like Cornell to clarify its policy. Of course, there's zero evidence because there's zero data about who was and wasn't given exemptions and Cornell, I imagine, is going to keep it that way.

I imagine Cornell University administration would clarify its policy when they become aware of confusion in its intended audience. Perhaps the lack of clarification to date signifies the intended audience is not as confused as you appear.

Correct. And the BIPOCs understood the dog whistle. Mission accomplished, no revision needed.

 

[Metaphor]

No: the point is not extremely clear. It isn't clear at all. Cornell's page is poorly written, and Arctish's rewrite has not resolved that. If it is the case that other exemptions for BIPOC will not be considered solely on the basis of 'historical mistrust', then Cornell has introduced confusion with its desperate desire to signal its virtue.

If one is searching high and low for a reason to feel victimized by efforts to deal with genuine historic wrongs in America, if, indeed one is from Australia and does not have the clue that white people in America have about how genuinely historic that is, one can, indeed, find this unclear if one insists. The majority of Cornell students are educated enough to understand this policy and why it is written the way it is.

My goodness I didn't know so many people on talkfreethought were personally acquainted with the majority of the Cornell student body.

 

[laughing dog]

I imagine Cornell University administration would clarify its policy when they become aware of confusion in its intended audience. Perhaps the lack of clarification to date signifies the intended audience is not as confused as you appear.

Correct. And the BIPOCs understood the dog whistle. Mission accomplished, no revision needed.

What dog whistle would that be?

 

[ronburgundy]

Even when properly understood and the moronic dishonest strawman of the OP rejected, the policy is idiotic and will lower vaccination compliance not just at Cornell but in general. As ought be true of all vaccinations, any place where vaccination is required, there should be no exemptions from vaccination other than a medically diagnosed physical vulnerability.

Yes, POCs and blacks in particular have a more rational basis to fear government trying to give them harmful drugs, as they have in the past. However, that those instance were always targeting them and not all citizens makes that application to this situation still highly irrational. Besides, religion is irrational by definition. To allow religious exemption is to allow baseless irrational ideas be grounds for exemption. So, how can they then say what non-religious grounds are rational and what are not, and why should only religious excuses be allowed to be irrational?

 

[Toni]

After further research, I think I can settle this now, and in favor of the view that the exemption is offered to everyone.

Here's is the archived page from 8-28-20, which is the earliest I found with the flu exemption.



Notice that it doesn't include the BIPOC language at all, so it was at first offered to everyone.

Further, here is the page on 9-2-20



That's the earliest page available with BIPOC language, and notice that it starts with "for example" which further confirms that BIPOC history was only intended as one possible exemption reason.

That's how they should have left the page, but some dunce decided to change it with the confusing language it has now. I give them a D- for this change. They should come see me after class.

Thank you for doing the research and posting your findings.

I agree that the earlier versions were better than the one we've been discussing. Perhaps Cornell will revise it again.

Alternate interpretation--the original version didn't make it clear enough that BIPOC was a reason for an exemption.

Because being a BIPOC was NOT a reason for exemption.