Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[ruby sparks]

Assuming it is true, my only caveat would be the usual one, that it is incorrect to lump this sort of racial discrimination in with other sorts and what is normally understood by the term racism.

Why would it be incorrect? Racism is racism no matter against what race(s) it is directed.

Nope, it isn't, and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise. In your case disingenuous, because you are far from stupid, and you already know the answer to your question. And I won't be discussing it with you in detail, because we've done it so many times.

 

[ruby sparks]

Your sources seem to be a tad right wing. As such, I'd like to see more or better confirmation that non-whites are, in fact, allowed an exemption.

The links to Cornell's own site is there.

If they are, I agree it seems daft, on the face of it. But if it is only one of a number of reasons that an exemption can be requested, it's not so bad.

Assuming it is true, my only caveat would be the usual one, that it is incorrect to lump this sort of racial discrimination in with other sorts and what is normally understood by the term racism.

ETA: I see that I may have jumped in without reading all the prior posts. It seems BIPOC students are allowed to request an exemption.

Whether or not you can request exemptions based on other reasons, it's still racial discrimination.

Under the 'religious' exemption explanation, it specifically rules out "Philosophical, political, scientific, or sociological objections."

So, Cornell, in all her wisdom, has decided that
* If you think God wants you not to vaccinate, you may be exempted
* If you have paranoid fantasies that vaccinations are a government conspiracy to experiment on "Black bodies", and you are BIPOC, you may be exempted
* If you object to tying a tertiary education to having a mandatory flu vaccine, you can go straight to hell. That's an ideological objection and doesn't count.

Right, so it's not exactly that big of a racial issue, and the reasons are given (and are not quite the way you describe them).

Personally, imo, I do still think it may be a bit too woke. But it's not as bad as I first thought.

 

[Metaphor]

The links to Cornell's own site is there.



Whether or not you can request exemptions based on other reasons, it's still racial discrimination.

Under the 'religious' exemption explanation, it specifically rules out "Philosophical, political, scientific, or sociological objections."

So, Cornell, in all her wisdom, has decided that
* If you think God wants you not to vaccinate, you may be exempted
* If you have paranoid fantasies that vaccinations are a government conspiracy to experiment on "Black bodies", and you are BIPOC, you may be exempted
* If you object to tying a tertiary education to having a mandatory flu vaccine, you can go straight to hell. That's an ideological objection and doesn't count.

Right, so it's not exactly that big of an issue, and the reasons are given.

Personally, I do still think it may be a bit too woke.

Yes, it's a big issue. Cornell discriminates against white students by race.

 

[ruby sparks]

While I don't agree that either should be good enough, "My grandfather was illegally experimented on and the researchers got away with it because he was black, so how do I know I'm not being experimented on?" is clearly a better reason for an exemption than "there's this 2000 year old text which we have come to accept as god's word in my family because that's what we do since my great-great-great-great-grandfather's days, and even though it clearly doesn't talk about vaccines (because there weren't any), my pastor interprets it as saying that god doesn't like vaccines".

Indeed. Neither may be a good reason, but the first is better, and grounded in reality at least.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, it's a big issue.

You forgot the words 'to' and 'me' at the end there.

(and quite possibly also 'because I'm so easily triggered').

 

[scombrid]

The links to Cornell's own site is there.



Whether or not you can request exemptions based on other reasons, it's still racial discrimination.

Under the 'religious' exemption explanation, it specifically rules out "Philosophical, political, scientific, or sociological objections."

So, Cornell, in all her wisdom, has decided that
* If you think God wants you not to vaccinate, you may be exempted
* If you have paranoid fantasies that vaccinations are a government conspiracy to experiment on "Black bodies", and you are BIPOC, you may be exempted
* If you object to tying a tertiary education to having a mandatory flu vaccine, you can go straight to hell. That's an ideological objection and doesn't count.

Right, so it's not exactly that big of an issue, and the reasons are given.

Personally, I do still think it may be a bit too woke.

Yes, it's a big issue. Cornell discriminates against white students by race.

Just tell then you're Jewish or Christian Scientist if you don't want to get vaccinated then. Usually these cases of right wing identity outrage involve as least some sort of possible advantage or perceived advantage given to a minority over white males. Being able to ask to be exempted from the flu vaccine isn't much of an advantage unless you think getting vaccinated is some sort of harm that they are getting special treatment in being given the option to avoid it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Being able to ask to be exempted from the flu vaccine isn't much of an advantage unless you think getting vaccinated is some sort of harm that they are getting special treatment in being given the option to avoid it.

Think about it. The fewer BIPOC get vaccinated, (a) the more vaccinations there are for white people and (b) the more BIPOC die. This is clearly a covert pro-white policy.

 

[jab]

Deeper into Woke clownworld we go. You couldn't make this stuff up.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...nation-mandatory-but-only-for-white-students/

An Ivy League university is requiring that white students receive an annual flu vaccination, while providing an exemption for students belonging to any other race. Because of “historical injustices and current events,” Cornell University will grant to “people of color” an exemption from its requirement that all students get a flu vaccination.
You are forgiven if you get a migraine trying to untangle the logic behind the reasoning for this exemption.
Apparently, because of “systemic racism and health inequities” in the United States, “individuals from some marginalized communities may have concerns about needing to agree to such requirements.”
The following is from the Cornell Health website, cornell.health.edu:
“We recognize that, due to longstanding systemic racism and health inequities in this country, individuals from some marginalized communities may have concerns about needing to agree to such requirements.
For example, historically, the bodies of Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) have been mistreated, and used by people in power, sometimes for profit or medical gain.
“It is understandable that the current Compact requirements may feel suspect or even exploitative to some BIPOC members of the Cornell community. Additionally, recent acts of violence against Black people by law enforcement may contribute to feelings of distrust or powerlessness.
We know this history and validate the potential concerns it may raise. At the same time, we know that long-standing social inequalities and health disparities have resulted in COVID-19 disproportionately affecting BIPOC individuals.
“Higher percentages of individuals from these communities become infected with COVID, and the health outcomes related to infection are often more serious.
Away from campus community, BIPOC individuals are not as likely to have access to preventive services or quality health care. The systems, services, and policies being implemented at Cornell seek to address these inequalities as well as the differential impacts.”

I've read through a few articles to see if events are being misreported, given the clickbait headline. But they're not.

https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=16344

Wow is this statement ever heteronormative, cis-normative and thus biggotted. Not woke enough. Historically, of course, the medical profession has been sunshine, roses, velvet and satin for bisexual, gay male, lesbian, transgender individuals.
Actually, this policy could be used to deny speedy access to the vaccine for non-white students, if there are limited supplies and the white students by fiat must get it to continue as students. So dumb as to beggar belief.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, it's a big issue.

You forgot the words 'to' and 'me' at the end there.

(and quite possibly also 'because I'm so easily triggered').

I'm not easily triggered, though if your counterargument is attacking me for my putative emotional states rather than defending discrimination by race by a university, I think you should reflect on that.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, it's a big issue. Cornell discriminates against white students by race.

Just tell then you're Jewish or Christian Scientist if you don't want to get vaccinated then. Usually these cases of right wing identity outrage involve as least some sort of possible advantage or perceived advantage given to a minority over white males. Being able to ask to be exempted from the flu vaccine isn't much of an advantage unless you think getting vaccinated is some sort of harm that they are getting special treatment in being given the option to avoid it.

"White people can get around it by lying" is not a defence of a policy that discriminates by race.

Of course it is special treatment. If something is compulsory, it is special treatment to be exempted from it, or to have more options for exemptions.

 

[laughing dog]

True, but racism has been defined to mean

first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race".

(https://www.google.com/search?channel=cus2&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=racism+definition+oxford). This policy is not racism under either of those understandings.

Funny how this definition is thrown overboard when it's about calling white people "racist" ...

That is historically untrue.

It is true that the meanings of "racism" have multiplied over the years. Which makes these types of discussion more difficult.

 

[Metaphor]

Funny how this definition is thrown overboard when it's about calling white people "racist" ...

That is historically untrue.

It is true that the meanings of "racism" have multiplied over the years. Which makes these types of discussion more difficult.

In the current CRT definition of 'racism', whether Cornell's policy is 'racist' depends on whether it reduces racial inequality or increases it (intentions are irrelevant).

Of course, whether it 'reduces' or 'increases' inequality depends on what you measure as an outcome.

 

[Trausti]

True, but racism has been defined to mean

first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race".

(https://www.google.com/search?channel=cus2&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=racism+definition+oxford). This policy is not racism under either of those understandings.

Lol. Nether is separate but equal.

 

[laughing dog]

True, but racism has been defined to mean

first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race".

(https://www.google.com/search?channel=cus2&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=racism+definition+oxford). This policy is not racism under either of those understandings.

Lol. Nether is separate but equal.

"Separate but equal" was racist under those understandings, since the intent was based on white supremacy and there was no equality.

 

[Jokodo]

While I don't agree that either should be good enough, "My grandfather was illegally experimented on and the researchers got away with it because he was black, so how do I know I'm not being experimented on?"

More like "somebody who had a similar skin hue" rather than "my grandfather".

You need to read up on 20th century medical history. For some it would be quite literally the grandparents.

is clearly a better reason for an exemption than "there's this 2000 year old text which we have come to accept as god's word in my family because that's what we do since my great-great-great-great-grandfather's days, and even though it clearly doesn't talk about vaccines (because there weren't any), my pastor interprets it as saying that god doesn't like vaccines".

Nether is rational.

There are different degrees of wrong, but allowing religious exceptions but explicitly not other slightly less irrational objections is holding the scale upside down.

 

[Trausti]

Lol. Nether is separate but equal.

"Separate but equal" was racist under those understandings, since the intent was based on white supremacy and there was no equality.

Okay Humpty Dumpty!

 

[laughing dog]

Lol. Nether is separate but equal.

"Separate but equal" was racist under those understandings, since the intent was based on white supremacy and there was no equality.

Okay Humpty Dumpty!

Is life like a box of chocolates for you?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Not mandating/requiring minorities to get the vaccine is an attempt to get them to have a higher vaccination rate.

Can you explain in words of one syllable how that works?

Being able to ask to be exempted from the flu vaccine isn't much of an advantage unless you think getting vaccinated is some sort of harm that they are getting special treatment in being given the option to avoid it.

Think about it. The fewer BIPOC get vaccinated, (a) the more vaccinations there are for white people and (b) the more BIPOC die. This is clearly a covert pro-white policy.

This was my interpretation on seeing the thread title.

I was surprised to see Metaphor characterise it as discrimination against whites.

This policy functions to protect white people, and to potentially expose anyone else to disease. It feels as if they are advertising where their concern lies. I could maybe accept it if there was the proviso that "... however, the University strongly recommends that everyone avails themselves of the vaccine." but there isn't.

University students should be educated enough to understand that historical experimentation doesn't mean the same thing is currently happening. And certainly smart enough to notice that people all round them in the queue are white.

The policy is unjust, but for reasons diametrically opposed to those Metaphor gives.

 

[Metaphor]

I was surprised to see Metaphor characterise it as discrimination against whites.

Of course it is discrimination against whites. Being compelled to do something that others are free to leave or take is not a benefit to you.

But, if you don't find it discrimination against whites but against BIPOC, then you should be comfortable with Cornell reversing the policy. All students are compelled to get flu vax, but white students can opt out by citing their whiteness.

This policy functions to protect white people, and to potentially expose anyone else to disease. It feels as if they are advertising where their concern lies. I could maybe accept it if there was the proviso that "... however, the University strongly recommends that everyone avails themselves of the vaccine." but there isn't.

The university does say that, quite clearly:

Compliance with Testing & Flu Vaccine Requirements | Cornell Health

The aforementioned inequities and injustices may lead some individuals to have reservations about testing and immunization, yet it is also important to acknowledge the critical role these measures play in protecting community health and well-being. In fact, they are likely to be especially helpful for BIPOC communities. For example, annual influenza vaccination is recommended for every individual 6 months or older who does not have medical contraindications, as it is the best way to help protect against flu. The vaccine has been shown to reduce the risk of flu illnesses, hospitalizations, and flu-related deaths. Those who get the vaccine not only protect themselves, but also the people around them who may be more vulnerable to serious flu illness, including infants, older adults, and those with underlying health conditions. They are designed to help students stay safe, and they are part of the quality health care students can access while on campus. We strongly recommend that students comply with these requirements. At the same time, we understand that someone may know the science and still feel distrusting of health care and may have addition questions.

University students should be educated enough to understand that historical experimentation doesn't mean the same thing is currently happening. And certainly smart enough to notice that people all round them in the queue are white.

The policy is unjust, but for reasons diametrically opposed to those Metaphor gives.

This policy discriminates against white people. If all white people at Cornell get a vaccine, and no BIPOC do, BIPOC will benefit from the herd immunity granted by the compelled majority.

When somebody is compelled to do something, it is a benefit to them to have the power to opt out. Reducing choice to people is not a benefit to those people.

The policy is not unjust because Cornell sought to endanger the lives of BIPOC. It's unjust because Cornell, along with almost the entire American academy, is in an arms-race of virtue-signalling its woke understanding of the world, and disavowing its whiteness. I agree with you that Cornell is completely infantilising BIPOC with this policy.

 

[laughing dog]

When somebody is compelled to do something, it is a benefit to them to have the power to opt out. Reducing choice to people is not a benefit to those people.

Nonsense. Allowing people to opt out of vaccinations for non-medical reasons is a cost to them. Compelling people who are medically able to have one is a benefit to them. Moreover, all students have the opportunity to opt out - so no one is having a reduced choice.

The policy is not unjust because Cornell sought to endanger the lives of BIPOC. It's unjust because Cornell, along with almost the entire American academy, is in an arms-race of virtue-signalling its woke understanding of the world, and disavowing its whiteness. I agree with you that Cornell is completely infantilising BIPOC with this policy.

Reactionary twaddle.