Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[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.

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

Who has said it meant they would grant them to all?

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.

To the people who are arguing this, what do you think is supposed happen in your oh so clever plot to trap students into getting this (already mandatory) vaccination, when all these "worried" POCS started submitting their hopeful, sincere exemption requests, only to have them all rejected out of hand? What an outcry that would create.

 

[blastula]

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.

Yes, a MEDICAL exemption, which doesn't help you.

 

[Politesse]

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

Yes, a MEDICAL exemption, which doesn't help you.

Or students of color with sociological complaints. As the page clearly states.

 

[blastula]

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

Yes, a MEDICAL exemption, which doesn't help you.

Or students of color with sociological complaints. As the page clearly states.

Omg. There's not a facepalm big enough.

It states that NOW in that last paragraph which created the flu vaccine exemption, which never existed till now. The rest of the page is about the longstanding MMR vaccination. Please try to pay attention.

 

[TomC]

An offer that is made to everyone.

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

Not that I see.
Where does Cornell say that only BIPOC can apply for this exemption? Where does Cornell say anybody will get one?

What I see is Cornell encouraging people to consider the information about the lack of such health care amongst BIPOC before applying for an ideological exemption.
Tom

 

[ruby sparks]

Where does Cornell say that only BIPOC can apply for this exemption?

Quite apart from the fact that BIPOC are specifically being addressed, how would a non-BIPOC person cite the relevant grounds, what Cornell explicitly calls the valid (BIPOC) concerns?

 

[ruby sparks]

...... before applying for an ideological exemption.

Interesting. So you see the grounds in this case as being ideological. I hadn't. And if Cornell see it that way, then they are being disingenuous.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

But this allegory alters the facts in significant ways.

Income taxation does not get exempted because some people have medical contraindications to being taxed, nor especially does somebody's religious beliefs about taxation exempt them.

Taxation is a legal obligation and tax evasion is a crime. Flu vaccination at Cornell is neither a legal obligation nor is avoiding it a crime.

Finally, I would criticise the imagined IRS response as well. If the IRS means 'we will not grant exemptions based on POG status' then I would expect them to say it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...... before applying for an ideological exemption.

Interesting. So you see the grounds in this case as being ideological. I hadn't. And if Cornell see it that way, then they are being disingenuous.

Is your point then that it is all ideological? How does one separate a person from a person's ideology anyway? Cornell is simply recognizing reality for what it is, not being heavy handed. It is after all a very liberal institution with a very liberal history. I like to refer to it as Berkeley East.

 

[ruby sparks]

...... before applying for an ideological exemption.

Interesting. So you see the grounds in this case as being ideological. I hadn't. And if Cornell see it that way, then they are being disingenuous.

Is your point then that it is all ideological?

Well, I explicitly said I hadn't seen the grounds for the exemption as ideological, so I obviously can't say it is all ideological, no.

This whole thread is heading for a collective national facepalm award, imo.

ETA: but there is probably some ideology involved in the issue, yes.

I take it you get that I am not strongly critical of Cornell here (and that obviously, I consider the OP claims over-egged) apart from thinking that for something as important as this (public health, during a time of unprecedented public health crisis) responding to such concerns by effectively creating a new, special category for applications for exemption, is not, imo, necessarily a good idea. But I would say that about the previously-included religious exemption grounds also, albeit for slightly different reasons perhaps, for things like this, at this particular time.

 

[laughing dog]

Who has said it meant they would grant them to all?

Here is the first example: Post 15 – “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.”

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.

To the people who are arguing this, what do you think is supposed happen in your oh so clever plot to trap students into getting this (already mandatory) vaccination, when all these "worried" POCS started submitting their hopeful, sincere exemption requests, only to have them all rejected out of hand? What an outcry that would create.

Um, "counsel/educate them to make an informed and rational decision" does not reject them all out of hand. So what exactly are you referring to?

 

[Arctish]

I don't know how the quotes got screwed up, but this is in response to an exchange between Politesse and blastula:

Cornell did not create a new exemption. What it created was a new vaccination requirement as part of it's COVID-19 response.

On it's page listing health requirements for its students, it say:

Immunization requirements are in place to protect the health of the community. Therefore, very few exemptions are allowed by New York State Public Health Law.* At present, two exemptions may be pursued: a medical exemption and a religious exemption.

It then lists what students would need to present in order to apply for an exemption on medical or religious grounds. At the bottom of the page is this:

Other exemption (for *FLU VACCINATION* requirement only): Ithaca students with other concerns / extenuating circumstances may request an exemption from the Fall 2020 flu vaccination requirement that is part of the university's COVID-19 Behavioral Compact. (Learn more about why Cornell is requiring flu vaccination for students.) 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.

The right to apply for an exemption exists for all students. There is no special privilege, no special offer, no special treatment. Any student may apply for an exemption. Two types of exemptions (medical and religious) may be pursued, and anyone can apply on those grounds.

The next part says students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) may have personal concerns based on historical injustices and current events, and may find <this thing right here> helpful in considering an exemption.

The <thing> isn't a how-to guide on getting an exemption. It isn't an offer to lower the exemptions bar just for them. It isn't something that only those who identify as black, indigenous, or persons of color can access or use. It isn't anything that might be construed as encouragement for them to try get an exemption. It's a statement explaining why the vaccination policy is good for everyone. It appears to be intended to discourage applications for exemptions, not facilitate them.

The idea that this is some kind or newly-minted privilege for black and minority students is the interpretation given by Metaphor's sources in the OP, and it's wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

The right to apply for an exemption exists for all students, and the first sentence makes clear.

The right to apply isn't in contention.

The next part says students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) may have personal concerns based on historical injustices and current events, and may find <this thing right here> helpful in considering an exemption.

The <thing> isn't a how-to guide on getting an exemption.

Actually, it does include links to papers describing that history, so it is certainly providing an evidence base.

It isn't an offer to lower the exemptions bar just for them. It isn't something that only those who identify as black, indigenous, or persons of color can use to get an exemption.

It outlines an additional reason that BIPOC can ask for an exemption.

It isn't anything that might be construed as encouragement for them to try to get one. It's a statement explaining why the vaccination policy is good for everyone. It appears to be intended to discourage applications for exemptions, not facilitate them.

The idea that this is some kind or newly-minted privilege for black and minority students is the interpretation given by Metaphor's sources in the OP, and it's wrong.

It's a paragraph describing exemptions for 'other' reasons. The only reason within the paragraph that is explicated is one specific to BIPOC people.

It seems to me nothing but wilful blindness to not understand why this is regarded as an exemption for BIPOC people.

 

[Arctish]

The right to apply isn't in contention.



Actually, it does include links to papers describing that history, so it is certainly providing an evidence base.

It isn't an offer to lower the exemptions bar just for them. It isn't something that only those who identify as black, indigenous, or persons of color can use to get an exemption.

It outlines an additional reason that BIPOC can ask for an exemption.

It isn't anything that might be construed as encouragement for them to try to get one. It's a statement explaining why the vaccination policy is good for everyone. It appears to be intended to discourage applications for exemptions, not facilitate them.

The idea that this is some kind or newly-minted privilege for black and minority students is the interpretation given by Metaphor's sources in the OP, and it's wrong.

It's a paragraph describing exemptions for 'other' reasons. The only reason within the paragraph that is explicated is one specific to BIPOC people.

It seems to me nothing but wilful blindness to not understand why this is regarded as an exemption for BIPOC people.

I think I know why your sources interpret it that way.

ruby sparks asked in another post what possible reason Cornell would have for posting that page if it wasn't offering exemptions to minority students. The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that young adults are more resistant to getting the flu vaccine than older adults, and minorities have lower vaccination rates than whites.

Flu Vaccination Rates Lag Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups:

Among adults (age 18 years and older), while the overall coverage estimate was 48% during the 2019-2020 flu season, flu vaccination coverage was:

38% among Hispanic or Latino persons
41% among non-Hispanic Black persons
42% among American Indian or Alaska Native persons
52% among Asian persons
And 53% among non-Hispanic White persons

Cornell appears to be aiming for 100% of students to be vaccinated against the flu as part of it's COVID-19 plan. That would explain why it has made flu vaccination a requirement, not just a recommendation.

In order to achieve that goal, Cornell will have to address the reasons why young people resist getting the flu vaccine. And that means it's going to have to at least acknowledge that some students may have particular reasons for being wary of the program, even as it touts the program as being beneficial to the community at large.

It's not about minorities being favored and whites being slighted. It's about overcoming obstacles to getting everyone on campus vaccinated.

 

[ruby sparks]

Something I find a bit odd is that as far as I'm aware, while anti-vax views and concerns in general are a very significant problem indeed (the World Health Organisation has gone as far as to say they are currently one of the top ten global health threats) they are not generally race-defined.

In this case, I'm sticking with 'a bit too much woke involved, in the circumstances, imo'.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Something I find a bit odd is that as far as I'm aware, while anti-vax views and concerns in general are a very significant problem indeed (the World Health Organisation has gone as far as to say they are currently one of the top ten global health threats) they are not generally race-defined.

In this case, I'm sticking with 'a bit too much woke involved, in the circumstances, imo'.

This isn't just anti-vax. There's an anti-medical and anti-government component here also, which is very much race-defined. There aren't many cases of white people not being given treatment in order to study how a disease progresses.

 

[TomC]

It seems to me nothing but wilful blindness to not understand why this is regarded as an exemption for BIPOC people.

You might believe that exemptions are being granted on the basis of being BIPOC, but I'm not seeing it. Cornell is being diplomatic about a touchy issue. But it sure looks to me like their plan is to maximize vaccination rates, while dodging the Woke bullshit. But nobody has been granted an exemption on ideological grounds that I know about.

I do think it unfortunate that religious ideology is considered grounds for an exemption. But those are a thing that's bigger than Cornell. They're in state law. And they aren't granted without serious documentation.

I think the willful blindness here is refusing to recognize that BIPOC aren't being granted exemptions unavailable to WASP people. Accepting requests for exemptions isn't the same as being granted the exemptions.
Tom

 

[ruby sparks]

This isn't just anti-vax. There's an anti-medical and anti-government component here also, which is very much race-defined. There aren't many cases of white people not being given treatment in order to study how a disease progresses.

In the USA, anti-government is very much race-defined? Who knew? Do you mean white people?

 

[Gun Nut]

This is being as misreported as "ballots are being sent out all over the place" when in reality "applications are being automatically sent out to registered voters".

Specifically, from Cornell:

While the university urges minority students to comply with the flu vaccine requirement to protect their health and that of others in the community, the health guidelines provide contact information for students who “may know the science and still feel distrusting of health care” to request an exemption

There is no requirement of race to request an exemption, and the implication that "knowing the science and still feeling distrust" is a threshold any applicant for exemption must theoretically demonstrate in some way.

That said, I only support medically-based exemptions... like always existed.

 

[blastula]

Here is the first example: Post 15 – “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.”

Okay, if that's what they meant.

To the people who are arguing this, what do you think is supposed happen in your oh so clever plot to trap students into getting this (already mandatory) vaccination, when all these "worried" POCS started submitting their hopeful, sincere exemption requests, only to have them all rejected out of hand? What an outcry that would create.

Um, "counsel/educate them to make an informed and rational decision" does not reject them all out of hand. So what exactly are you referring to?

e.g. Tom above, but if you're not saying that, okay. You're still postulating a weird, convoluted reverse psychology ploy to talk students into taking a MANDATORY vaccination.