Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[blastula]

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?

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.

 

[blastula]

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.

It created both the new vaccination requirement and a new "other" exemption not offered for the MMR vaccination. They could have just limited it to the same two exemptions for the flu one too.

The right to apply for an exemption exists for all students.

Maybe, maybe not, it's not clear.

 

[TomC]

The right to apply for an exemption exists for all students.
Maybe, maybe not, it's not clear.

Really?
You don't think that any student can apply for an exemption?

Seriously?

Did you even read the stuff posted from Cornell's website?
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?

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.

Somehow I doubt it came about in quite that way.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

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?

I believe that anti-government feelings are stronger in the group that is more frequently shot without provocation by police; harassed while driving, being in a white neighborhood, or even just trying to enter their own home; and experiences overt attempts by government to suppress their ability to vote.

Do you think that's a reference to white people?

 

[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?

I believe that anti-government feelings are stronger in the group that is more frequently shot without provocation by police; harassed while driving, being in a white neighborhood, or even just trying to enter their own home; and experiences overt attempts by government to suppress their ability to vote.

Do you think that's a reference to white people?

No. But I had to check, because I didn't think being anti-government is race-defined in the USA.

But if you meant that there is a particular type of anti-government component involved here that IS racially-defined, then sure, quite possibly.

In that case, I guess the other forms of anti-government concern are not considered to be as valid, or at least not as worthy of Cornell specifically saying that they are valid.

 

[Arctish]

Let's try slightly altering the way Cornell presented information about its flu vaccination requirement for Ithaca-based students under the Are exemptions from Cornell's immunization requirements ever granted? tab on the Health Requirements FAQ page.

It states that flu vaccinations are required for all Cornell students studying in Ithaca during 2020-2021 academic year, and that exceptions may be made for those who receive a medical, religious, or other exemption. It says immunization requirements are in place to protect the health of the community, and therefore very few exemptions are allowed by New York State Public Health Law. It tells students how to meet the vaccination requirement, and about the deadline for compliance.

It also tells students what they need to present in order to apply for an exemption on medical or religious grounds.

Then comes the part about requesting an exemption for a different reason:

"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."

Students with other concerns may request an exemption.

Students with extenuating circumstances may request an exemption.

Students who may have personal concerns based on historical injustices and current events (BIPOC, because they're the ones who were on the receiving end of historical injustices and whose experience of injustice is fueling the current events most likely to negatively impact Cornell's plan to have all students vaccinated) may find this page about compliance helpful in considering an exemption.

Students who read the page about compliance will see that Cornell has made vaccination a requirement for community health reasons and fully intends to enforce the new policy, but is also willing to work with students and provide them with scientifically accurate information and counseling to address whatever fears and concerns they may have about such things.

Cornell could have made their point clearer but honestly, I think the OP article is an example of quote mining for maximum tempest-in-a-teapot effect. Whites are not being discriminated against, blacks and minorities are not being given special privileges, and Cornell is not being horribly unfair to anyone.

 

[Metaphor]

Let's try slightly altering the way Cornell presented information about its flu vaccination requirement for Ithaca-based students under the Are exemptions from Cornell's immunization requirements ever granted? tab on the Health Requirements FAQ page.

It states that flu vaccinations are required for all Cornell students studying in Ithaca during 2020-2021 academic year, and that exceptions may be made for those who receive a medical, religious, or other exemption. It says immunization requirements are in place to protect the health of the community, and therefore very few exemptions are allowed by New York State Public Health Law. It tells students how to meet the vaccination requirement, and about the deadline for compliance.

It also tells students what they need to present in order to apply for an exemption on medical or religious grounds.

Then comes the part about requesting an exemption for a different reason:

"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."

Students with other concerns may request an exemption.

Students with extenuating circumstances may request an exemption.

Students who may have personal concerns based on historical injustices and current events (BIPOC, because they're the ones who were on the receiving end of historical injustices and whose experience of injustice is fueling the current events most likely to negatively impact Cornell's plan to have all students vaccinated) may find this page about compliance helpful in considering an exemption.

Students who read the page about compliance will see that Cornell has made vaccination a requirement for community health reasons and fully intends to enforce the new policy, but is also willing to work with students and provide them with scientifically accurate information and counseling to address whatever fears and concerns they may have about such things.

Cornell could have made their point clearer but honestly, I think the OP article is an example of quote mining for maximum tempest-in-a-teapot effect. Whites are not being discriminated against, blacks and minorities are not being given special privileges, and Cornell is not being horribly unfair to anyone.

They haven't made any point clear and your rewriting does not help, because you've rewritten it simply assuming there is no special other exemption for BIPOC people. Also, the NY law does not apply to the flu vaccination, which is Cornell's policy, not the state of NY.

Cornell, I assume, is probably aware of the comment that their page/policy has caused, and I would expect them to clear it up one way or another.

If their policy really is to accept 'mistrust because of historical events' as a reason to request an exemption for BIPOC people, they should make it explicit. If there is no special consideration for BIPOC people along those lines, they should say "exemptions based on anxiety because of historical state wrongs against BIPOC people will not be considered a valid exemption reason".

I suspect the only way we'll actually know is if someone at Cornell requests an exemption based on that particular reason and is either granted it or denied it.

 

[Toni]

Let's try slightly altering the way Cornell presented information about its flu vaccination requirement for Ithaca-based students under the Are exemptions from Cornell's immunization requirements ever granted? tab on the Health Requirements FAQ page.

It states that flu vaccinations are required for all Cornell students studying in Ithaca during 2020-2021 academic year, and that exceptions may be made for those who receive a medical, religious, or other exemption. It says immunization requirements are in place to protect the health of the community, and therefore very few exemptions are allowed by New York State Public Health Law. It tells students how to meet the vaccination requirement, and about the deadline for compliance.

It also tells students what they need to present in order to apply for an exemption on medical or religious grounds.

Then comes the part about requesting an exemption for a different reason:

"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."

Students with other concerns may request an exemption.

Students with extenuating circumstances may request an exemption.

Students who may have personal concerns based on historical injustices and current events (BIPOC, because they're the ones who were on the receiving end of historical injustices and whose experience of injustice is fueling the current events most likely to negatively impact Cornell's plan to have all students vaccinated) may find this page about compliance helpful in considering an exemption.

Students who read the page about compliance will see that Cornell has made vaccination a requirement for community health reasons and fully intends to enforce the new policy, but is also willing to work with students and provide them with scientifically accurate information and counseling to address whatever fears and concerns they may have about such things.

Cornell could have made their point clearer but honestly, I think the OP article is an example of quote mining for maximum tempest-in-a-teapot effect. Whites are not being discriminated against, blacks and minorities are not being given special privileges, and Cornell is not being horribly unfair to anyone.

They haven't made any point clear and your rewriting does not help, because you've rewritten it simply assuming there is no special other exemption for BIPOC people. Also, the NY law does not apply to the flu vaccination, which is Cornell's policy, not the state of NY.

Cornell, I assume, is probably aware of the comment that their page/policy has caused, and I would expect them to clear it up one way or another.

If their policy really is to accept 'mistrust because of historical events' as a reason to request an exemption for BIPOC people, they should make it explicit. If there is no special consideration for BIPOC people along those lines, they should say "exemptions based on anxiety because of historical state wrongs against BIPOC people will not be considered a valid exemption reason".

I suspect the only way we'll actually know is if someone at Cornell requests an exemption based on that particular reason and is either granted it or denied it.

The point is extremely clear to anyone with a high school level of reading comprehension.

So is Arctish's explanation, which you also either misunderstand or are deliberately misinterpreting.

 

[Metaphor]

They haven't made any point clear and your rewriting does not help, because you've rewritten it simply assuming there is no special other exemption for BIPOC people. Also, the NY law does not apply to the flu vaccination, which is Cornell's policy, not the state of NY.

Cornell, I assume, is probably aware of the comment that their page/policy has caused, and I would expect them to clear it up one way or another.

If their policy really is to accept 'mistrust because of historical events' as a reason to request an exemption for BIPOC people, they should make it explicit. If there is no special consideration for BIPOC people along those lines, they should say "exemptions based on anxiety because of historical state wrongs against BIPOC people will not be considered a valid exemption reason".

I suspect the only way we'll actually know is if someone at Cornell requests an exemption based on that particular reason and is either granted it or denied it.

The point is extremely clear to anyone with a high school level of reading comprehension.

So is Arctish's explanation, which you also either misunderstand or are deliberately misinterpreting.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

They haven't made any point clear and your rewriting does not help, because you've rewritten it simply assuming there is no special other exemption for BIPOC people. Also, the NY law does not apply to the flu vaccination, which is Cornell's policy, not the state of NY.

Cornell, I assume, is probably aware of the comment that their page/policy has caused, and I would expect them to clear it up one way or another.

If their policy really is to accept 'mistrust because of historical events' as a reason to request an exemption for BIPOC people, they should make it explicit. If there is no special consideration for BIPOC people along those lines, they should say "exemptions based on anxiety because of historical state wrongs against BIPOC people will not be considered a valid exemption reason".

I suspect the only way we'll actually know is if someone at Cornell requests an exemption based on that particular reason and is either granted it or denied it.

The point is extremely clear to anyone with a high school level of reading comprehension.

So is Arctish's explanation, which you also either misunderstand or are deliberately misinterpreting.

No: the point is not extremely clear. It isn't clear at all.

To be accurate, it is not clear to you. That does not mean it is not clear to others, especially the intended audience (students at Cornell University).

 

[Metaphor]

No: the point is not extremely clear. It isn't clear at all.

To be accurate, it is not clear to you. That does not mean it is not clear to others, especially the intended audience (students at Cornell University).

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.

Does your omniscience and staggering intellect sometimes frighten you?

 

[Arctish]

They haven't made any point clear and your rewriting does not help, because you've rewritten it simply assuming there is no special other exemption for BIPOC people. Also, the NY law does not apply to the flu vaccination, which is Cornell's policy, not the state of NY.

Cornell, I assume, is probably aware of the comment that their page/policy has caused, and I would expect them to clear it up one way or another.

If their policy really is to accept 'mistrust because of historical events' as a reason to request an exemption for BIPOC people, they should make it explicit. If there is no special consideration for BIPOC people along those lines, they should say "exemptions based on anxiety because of historical state wrongs against BIPOC people will not be considered a valid exemption reason".

I suspect the only way we'll actually know is if someone at Cornell requests an exemption based on that particular reason and is either granted it or denied it.

The point is extremely clear to anyone with a high school level of reading comprehension.

So is Arctish's explanation, which you also either misunderstand or are deliberately misinterpreting.

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.

The only thing that might be unclear is the difference between the first sentence in the *Other exemptions* section, and the second.

"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."

IOW:

Students with other concerns may request an exemption.

Students with extenuating circumstances may request an exemption.

Students who may have personal concerns about compliance based on historical injustices and current events may find our additional information page helpful in considering an exemption.

One of ^these things^ is not like the others.

Students with other concerns / extenuating circumstances are straight up told they may request an exemption. Students who may have personal concerns about compliance based on historical injustices and current events (BIPOC) are directed to a page that presents an argument in favor of the vaccination policy, recognition of the history of mistreatment & lack of access to appropriate care that may be affecting student's health decisions, a strong recommendation that students comply with the vaccine requirements, and information on how students with addition questions can contact Cornell Health.

It would perhaps have been helpful if Cornell has presented the two sentences in the "Other exemptions" section as bullet points, but all it takes is a little thought to understand what was being offered and what wasn't.

 

[Metaphor]

Students with other concerns may request an exemption.

Students with extenuating circumstances may request an exemption.

Students who may have personal concerns about compliance based on historical injustices and current events may find our additional information page helpful in considering an exemption.

One of ^these things^ is not like the others.

You don't say. One of them is not like the others because you re-wrote the offending paragraph according to how you've interpreted it.

Students with other concerns / extenuating circumstances are straight up told they may request an exemption. Students who may have personal concerns about compliance based on historical injustices and current events (BIPOC) are directed to a page that presents an argument in favor of the vaccination policy, recognition of the history of mistreatment & lack of access to appropriate care for minorities, a strong recommendation that students comply with the vaccine requirements, and how students with addition questions can contact Cornell Health.

It would perhaps have been helpful if Cornell has separated those two sentences into bullet points, but all it takes is a moment's thought to understand what was being offered and what wasn't.

Why would Cornell bother asking BIPOC students to comply (in this instance, meaning not seek an 'other' exemption) if it didn't mean to consider exemptions for BIPOC as BIPOC?

But it's okay; I can see I am the one at fault. According to you, it only takes 'a moment's thought' to resolve Cornell's perhaps slightly foggy meaning. According to Toni, it doesn't even take a moment's thought, any bozo with a high school reading level could not possibly have been mistaken about what Cornell meant.

 

[ruby sparks]

Cornell were trying to cover their asses, in case someone accused them of not being woke enough. In the current heightened socio-political climate, rife with pitfalls and calling-outs, an 'establishment institution' facing such accusations is a realistic possibility.

Personally, I don't think handling vaccinations for potentially deadly diseases at a time of unprecedented global health crisis was the best time or place to do it. It is at least somewhat confusing and controversial, imo.

If they are not, in fact, going to allow any exemptions on this basis after explicitly saying these are valid concerns, and taking the trouble to single them out as such from other potential concerns, and as at least a potential basis for exemption applications, it could get tricky for them. Are the concerns, in the end, valid or not? And if they do allow exemptions on this basis, it could be tricky for them in another way.

 

[laughing dog]

No: the point is not extremely clear. It isn't clear at all.

To be accurate, it is not clear to you. That does not mean it is not clear to others, especially the intended audience (students at Cornell University).

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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 other posters on this thread do not think it is clear at all. So, what do we then consider to satisfy the matter of 'clearness'? It is evidently disputed.

Toni invoked her mental superiority:

The point is extremely clear to anyone with a high school level of reading comprehension.

So either Toni is accusing me of not having a high school level of reading comprehension, or she thinks I am lying to win friends and influence people.

Others have invoked the biased mindset of 'conservatives' and or the 'right-wing'.

And you then speculated that the 'clear to others' group includes Cornell students, who presumably do have a high school reading level and are not morally bankrupt right-wingers.

EDIT: and here's a thing. I think you, Toni, and Arctish all think it seems 'clear' because you consistently downplay the influence, and sometimes even the very existence, of woke ideas that have laid waste to common sense in the American academy for decades (though wokeness' long march through the institutions has quickened to a gallop recently).

 

[laughing dog]

And other posters on this thread do not think it is clear at all. So, what do we then consider to satisfy the matter of 'clearness'? It is evidently disputed.

That is clear.

EDIT: and here's a thing. I think you, Toni, and Arctish all think it seems 'clear' because you consistently downplay the influence, and sometimes even the very existence, of woke ideas that have laid waste to common sense in the American academy for decades (though wokeness' long march through the institutions has quickened to a gallop recently).[/COLOR]

I realize you feel that is true. I believe your views are reactionary.

 

[Arctish]

You don't say. One of them is not like the others because you re-wrote the offending paragraph according to how you've interpreted it.

One of them is not like the others because the first sentence plainly states "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.", while the second sentence directs "Students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) [who] may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events" to a page that restates Cornell's stance on the vaccination requirement, argues that it is of benefit to marginalized and minority communities, and informs students who might still have concerns how they can contact Cornell Health.

That linked page does not offer a special BIPOC category of exemption. Neither does the main page, nor any other Cornell health page I have found. If you think one of them does, please link and quote the passage you believe does that.

Students with other concerns / extenuating circumstances are straight up told they may request an exemption. Students who may have personal concerns about compliance based on historical injustices and current events (BIPOC) are directed to a page that presents an argument in favor of the vaccination policy, recognition of the history of mistreatment & lack of access to appropriate care for minorities, a strong recommendation that students comply with the vaccine requirements, and how students with addition questions can contact Cornell Health.

It would perhaps have been helpful if Cornell has separated those two sentences into bullet points, but all it takes is a moment's thought to understand what was being offered and what wasn't.

Why would Cornell bother asking BIPOC students to comply (in this instance, meaning not seek an 'other' exemption) if it didn't mean to consider exemptions for BIPOC as BIPOC?

I don't know for certain but I believe it is because black and minority persons have lower vaccination rates than whites, and Cornell realizes it will have to address the reason(s) why in order for it's COVID-19 plan of action to be a success.

But it's okay; I can see I am the one at fault. According to you, it only takes 'a moment's thought' to resolve Cornell's perhaps slightly foggy meaning. According to Toni, it doesn't even take a moment's thought, any bozo with a high school reading level could not possibly have been mistaken about what Cornell meant.

Well, a little thought and not skipping over Cornell saying on every single Cornell Health page related to the topic how important it is for students to comply with the vaccination requirements, how integral it is to their COVID-19 response plan, how beneficial mass vaccinations are to the greater community, and that they really, really want all their students to be vaccinated.

I suppose if you just focus on the part where the concerns of BIPOC students due to historic mistreatment were mentioned but the concerns of white students due to historic preferential treatment weren't, someone somewhere could feel justified in getting huffy that the whites weren't getting the expression of understanding along with a second dose of reasons for complying with the vaccination requirements

I couldn't, but that's just me.

 

[Metaphor]

One of them is not like the others because the first sentence plainly states "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.", while the second sentence directs "Students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) [who] may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events" to a page that restates Cornell's stance on the vaccination requirement, argues that it is of benefit to marginalized and minority communities, and informs students who might still have concerns how they can contact Cornell Health.

That linked page does not offer a special BIPOC category of exemption. Neither does the main page, nor any other Cornell health page I have found. If you think one of them does, please link and quote the passage you believe does that.

The main page implies the exemption category in the 'other exemptions' paragraph.

If Cornell did not mean to imply that BIPOC students could seek an 'other exemption' based on being BIPOC, why did it put the words "when considering an exemption" in the pararaph?

Cornell did not explain what 'other reasons' might be accepted. It does not speak about what 'extenuating circumstances' might qualify for an exemption. Maybe they don't want to 'give away' what will qualify for an exemption because they just don't want people to exempt themselves. And yet they specifically talk about a reason why BIPOC might want to exempt themselves, and then provide links to academic papers detailing exactly the kind of historical horrors visited upon BIPOC people and we understand why you might want an exemption.

If Cornell is not considering exemptions for BIPOC, based on BIPOC status, after Cornell explicitly acknowledges that BIPOC people might feel mistrustful, and links to evidence in its own FAQ that a BIPOC could cite as evidence for the need for an exemption, then Cornell is being patronising, misleading, and even a bit sadistic.

But one thing it isn't being, is 'clear'.

I don't know for certain but I believe it is because black and minority persons have lower vaccination rates than whites, and Cornell realizes it will have to address the reason(s) why in order for it's COVID-19 plan of action to be a success.

That makes no sense. One does not present evidence that BIPOC people have a good reason to be mistrustful of vaccines in a paragraph talking about exemptions in order to increase the BIPOC vaccination rate.

Well, a little thought and not skipping over Cornell saying on every single Cornell Health page related to the topic how important it is for students to comply with the vaccination requirements, how integral it is to their COVID-19 response plan, how beneficial mass vaccinations are to the greater community, and that they really, really want all their students to be vaccinated.

I don't doubt they want to. None of that is evidence against that BIPOC will be considered for exemption as BIPOC.

I suppose if you just focus on the part where the concerns of BIPOC students due to historic mistreatment were mentioned but the concerns of white students due to historic preferential treatment weren't, someone somewhere could feel justified in getting huffy that the whites weren't getting the expression of understanding along with a second dose of reasons for complying with the vaccination requirements

I couldn't, but that's just me.

You believe it is an 'expression of understanding' only. I agree that either way, the very least it is is virtue-signalling.

You also believe Cornell has no and never did have any intention of exempting BIPOC as BIPOC, despite introducing the idea about BIPOC mistrust in the 'other exemptions' category.

EDIT: I really hope a BIPOC student requests an exemption based on being BIPOC. If they are granted the exemption, that will satisfy the question on whether exemptions based on BIPOC status are being offered.