Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[Metaphor]

Really? You think that Rhea is being nasty?

Yes, Rhea was being nasty. I would not have pointed out she was being nasty if I did not think she was being nasty.

Or that it came out of 'nowhere?'

Yes, it came out of nowhere. Rhea entered the conversation and I asked some questions and then she responded as if I was a hysterical white person 'triggered' by Cornell's policy. She caricatured me and she did it to mock me.

You've spent this entire thread talking about how racist

I did not say it was 'racist'. I said it was discrimination by race. I tend not to use the word 'racist' any more, because critical race theorists and the woke have so utterly destroyed the meaning it once had it is no longer a helpful word.

But note that, as diligent as I was in not using the term 'racist'--and you can go back and look--it still did not save me from you accusing me of it right now. It is clear to me that it doesn't matter what I say.

something that an American University has on its website---and have argued with anyone who has pointed out that the policy does not say or mean or imply what the OP claims. Some have even taken considerable time and effort to look through archived materials for other versions, hoping to help bring some clarity to you. Now, you are belittling Rhea's own conversations with the many people she knows at Cornell, where she has from time to time, spoken and recruited.

I guess my old boss was right: You can lead someone to knowledge but you cannot make them think.

Did your old boss ever speak to you about your nasty, condescending, intolerant and vicious attitude to anyone who disagrees with you?

 

[Rhea]

Sorry, but you have this exactly backwards. The page you copied from is not the page with

The page I copied is the one n the OP. It shows no real reason to be upset.

the exemption language and has never been edited. It's the FAQ page that's been changed.

As I already posted, it looked like this on 8-28-20.



At that point, the exemption was offered to anyone, with nothing said about POCs. Nobody should be bothered about it at that point, other than that they are offering a non-medical exemption at all to anyone.

But then the same page on 9-2-20

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 Behavioral Compact. For example, 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. Learn more below about why Cornell is requiring flu vaccination for students,
​​​​​To do so, send us a secure message through our patient portal explaining why you believe you should receive an exemption from this requirement. Log in to myCornellHealth and select Messages & Pharmacy Services > New Message > Send a message or an attachment to Immunization Requirements.

That added the "for example" with the POC stuff.

But now currently, the page says 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.

• To apply for a non-medical/religious exemption to the flu vaccination requirement, students should send us a secure message through our patient portal explaining why you believe you should receive an exemption from this requirement. Log in to myCornellHealth and select Messages & Pharmacy Services > New Message > Send a message or an attachment to Immunization Requirements.

Which took out "for example" and so made it sound like that was the only allowed exemption.

So, the editing went in the exact opposite direction of what you said:

It was a misinterpretation that requires the most aggressive assumptions of intent, which are being made more clearly wrong with every edit attempt to appease the fragile white victims and predict how they could possibly mis-read it this time.

I do find it amusing though to think that this forum here could be the only place on the planet that's still discussing this policy.

Where the “THIS INFORMATION” that they may FIND HELPFUL is exactly what I quoted and is the information that tells them they shoud get vaccinated and not let their fears overcome them.

~shrug~. Still not a special expemtion for BIPOCs that oppresses the White.

 

[Toni]

Yes, Rhea was being nasty. I would not have pointed out she was being nasty if I did not think she was being nasty.



Yes, it came out of nowhere. Rhea entered the conversation and I asked some questions and then she responded as if I was a hysterical white person 'triggered' by Cornell's policy. She caricatured me and she did it to mock me.

You've spent this entire thread talking about how racist

I did not say it was 'racist'. I said it was discrimination by race. I tend not to use the word 'racist' any more, because critical race theorists and the woke have so utterly destroyed the meaning it once had it is no longer a helpful word.

But note that, as diligent as I was in not using the term 'racist'--and you can go back and look--it still did not save me from you accusing me of it right now. It is clear to me that it doesn't matter what I say.

something that an American University has on its website---and have argued with anyone who has pointed out that the policy does not say or mean or imply what the OP claims. Some have even taken considerable time and effort to look through archived materials for other versions, hoping to help bring some clarity to you. Now, you are belittling Rhea's own conversations with the many people she knows at Cornell, where she has from time to time, spoken and recruited.

I guess my old boss was right: You can lead someone to knowledge but you cannot make them think.

Did your old boss ever speak to you about your nasty, condescending, intolerant and vicious attitude to anyone who disagrees with you?

I think you are talking to your own reflection, Metaphor. I'm generally seen as polite, helpful, kind and caring. My old boss used different words than I did, paraphrasing: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I used more polite words because I really did not want to insult you.

We can all explain to you why you are mistaken but we cannot understand it for you. There honestly is nothing wrong with being wrong or not understanding the point someone is trying to make. Sometimes you just have to go back and re-read and re-think for a while.

Rhea did not enter the thread to be nasty. None of the people pointing out that your OP and the article linked in your OP are in direct contradiction to the actual Cornell verbiage regarding vaccines are being nasty, intolerant, condescending or vicious. People have politely and in great detail pointed out that Cornell isn't saying what your newspaper claims it was. You seem incapable of recognizing your error or of recognizing that there actually are people more familiar and with greater understanding of Cornell's policies and US history than you possess.

 

[Rhea]

I think you've just decided to be particularly nasty out of nowhere.

Really? You think that Rhea is being nasty? Or that it came out of 'nowhere?'.

Perhaps he was expecting me to say something kinder and more in keeping with the thread, like,

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?

Which might impel the question,

Did your old boss ever speak to you about your nasty, condescending, intolerant and vicious attitude to anyone who disagrees with you?

 

[Metaphor]

I think you are talking to your own reflection, Metaphor. I'm generally seen as polite, helpful, kind and caring.

What's important is that when people tell you you've been condescending to them, is that you discount any such testimony. That helps you grow as a person.

My old boss used different words than I did, paraphrasing: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I used more polite words because I really did not want to insult you.

Every single response Toni, you manage to say something that climbs even higher to such staggeringly unbelievable heights of nastiness, I'm convinced you must have vertigo.

You thought it was more polite to say 'lead a human to knowledge but cannot make them think' than 'lead a horse to water...'?

You thought that was kinder? To so condescend to me that you think I do not understand the meaning of common English idioms? Or perhaps you thought I'd be triggered by being compared to a horse? And how kind of you, to lead me to this wellspring of knowledge so that I, too, can see the world exactly as you do.

We can all explain to you why you are mistaken but we cannot understand it for you. There honestly is nothing wrong with being wrong or not understanding the point someone is trying to make. Sometimes you just have to go back and re-read and re-think for a while.

Rhea did not enter the thread to be nasty. None of the people pointing out that your OP and the article linked in your OP are in direct contradiction to the actual Cornell verbiage regarding vaccines are being nasty, intolerant, condescending or vicious. People have politely and in great detail pointed out that Cornell isn't saying what your newspaper claims it was. You seem incapable of recognizing your error or of recognizing that there actually are people more familiar and with greater understanding of Cornell's policies and US history than you possess.

No. You seem incapable of entertaining any perspective other than your own.

 

[Rhea]

You thought it was more polite to say 'lead a human to knowledge but cannot make them think' than 'lead a horse to water...'?

She said her boss used an even nastier paraphrase of that saying. She toned it down to, “lead a person to knowledge...”

It is perhaps ironic that you misunderstood her words and took them to be an extra insult.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, Rhea was being nasty. I would not have pointed out she was being nasty if I did not think she was being nasty.

I think someone is a bit thin-skinned.

Yes, it came out of nowhere. Rhea entered the conversation and I asked some questions and then she responded as if I was a hysterical white person 'triggered' by Cornell's policy. She caricatured me and she did it to mock me.

Perhaps if you stopped posting like a hysterical white person triggered by conservative sites presenting half-truths, people wouldn't make that mistake.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, Rhea was being nasty. I would not have pointed out she was being nasty if I did not think she was being nasty.

You think wrong.

Yes, it came out of nowhere. Rhea entered the conversation and I asked some questions and then she responded as if I was a hysterical white person 'triggered' by Cornell's policy. She caricatured me and she did it to mock me.

Nah, it is your hypersensitivity working overtime. Frankly, your OP and responses do come off as a hysterical white person "triggered" by Cornell's policy. Maybe you should think about that.


[

 

[Rhea]

Rhea entered the conversation

Sometimes people forget that there are scores of people (sometimes hundreds) “in the conversation” who are not posting. When you post in these fora, you should know that we have thousands of visitors a day. They are “in the conversation” reading everything that came before it in the thread, they didn’t just walk in and overhear only the last sentence.

 

[Metaphor]

You thought it was more polite to say 'lead a human to knowledge but cannot make them think' than 'lead a horse to water...'?

She said her boss used an even nastier paraphrase of that saying. She toned it down to, “lead a person to knowledge...”

It is perhaps ironic that you misunderstood her words and took them to be an extra insult.

Toni said:

My old boss used different words than I did, paraphrasing: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I used more polite words because I really did not want to insult you.

If Toni meant her boss used words other than a close approximation to 'you can lead a horse to water...', she has been hopeless in communicating it. 'Paraphrasing' does not mean 'my boss said something completely different in tone and wording'.

Toni has accused me of not understanding before. What is troubling to me is how Toni can utter the exact opposite of the truth and not see the irony. I can see how some people have decided there is no exemption. But most cannot see the other side. They cannot even entertain the notion that a paragraph that talks about BIPOC who wish to seek an 'other exemption' may want to look at information informing them exactly why Cornell understands their position, and why providing this information in an 'other exemptions' category implies Cornell considers it a kind of reason that might count as an 'other' exemption.

As Toni has said to me, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

 

[Metaphor]

Rhea entered the conversation

Sometimes people forget that there are scores of people (sometimes hundreds) “in the conversation” who are not posting. When you post in these fora, you should know that we have thousands of visitors a day. They are “in the conversation” reading everything that came before it in the thread, they didn’t just walk in and overhear only the last sentence.

You entered the conversation at a certain point. There's no other way to describe making your first post in a thread. I did not say, and do not believe, you had only read the last post in the thread and I didn't imply you did.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, Rhea was being nasty. I would not have pointed out she was being nasty if I did not think she was being nasty.

You think wrong.

Yes, it came out of nowhere. Rhea entered the conversation and I asked some questions and then she responded as if I was a hysterical white person 'triggered' by Cornell's policy. She caricatured me and she did it to mock me.

Nah, it is your hypersensitivity working overtime. Frankly, your OP and responses do come off as a hysterical white person "triggered" by Cornell's policy. Maybe you should think about that.


[

It beggars belief that people can honestly believe Rhea was not making fun of me when she wrote her "triggered" "OPPRESIONZ" comment.

It would still be true that she was being nasty even if had been triggered and I had made a hysterical claim of oppression.

Maybe you should think about that.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, Rhea was being nasty. I would not have pointed out she was being nasty if I did not think she was being nasty.

I think someone is a bit thin-skinned.

Yes, it came out of nowhere. Rhea entered the conversation and I asked some questions and then she responded as if I was a hysterical white person 'triggered' by Cornell's policy. She caricatured me and she did it to mock me.

Perhaps if you stopped posting like a hysterical white person triggered by conservative sites presenting half-truths, people wouldn't make that mistake.

I'm not triggered. To be triggered is to have a psychopysiological, high-anxiety reaction to a certain phenomenon. But even if I were triggered, it would still be nasty to mock my anxiety.

 

[Arctish]

I can see how some people have decided there is no exemption. But most cannot see the other side. They cannot even entertain the notion that a paragraph that talks about BIPOC who wish to seek an 'other exemption' may want to look at information informing them exactly why Cornell understands their position, and why providing this information in an 'other exemptions' category implies Cornell considers it a kind of reason that might count as an 'other' exemption.

I think pretty much everybody understands that, but only some understand that the page Cornell was drawing the attention of BIPOC students to was almost entirely devoted to talking them out of requesting one.

 

[Metaphor]

I can see how some people have decided there is no exemption. But most cannot see the other side. They cannot even entertain the notion that a paragraph that talks about BIPOC who wish to seek an 'other exemption' may want to look at information informing them exactly why Cornell understands their position, and why providing this information in an 'other exemptions' category implies Cornell considers it a kind of reason that might count as an 'other' exemption.

I think pretty much everybody understands that, but only some understand that the page Cornell was drawing the attention of BIPOC students to was almost entirely devoted to talking them out of requesting one.

Toni doesn't understand that. She said there was no ambiguity about whether Cornell was offering an exemption. "Extremely clear". She didn't even believe I believed it--she accused me of just wanting to argue.

And the last paragraph you wrote, the irony (and incoherence) of talking people out of requesting an exemption that some people believe that Cornell wasn't even offering in the first place--not even considered.

 

[Arctish]

I can see how some people have decided there is no exemption. But most cannot see the other side. They cannot even entertain the notion that a paragraph that talks about BIPOC who wish to seek an 'other exemption' may want to look at information informing them exactly why Cornell understands their position, and why providing this information in an 'other exemptions' category implies Cornell considers it a kind of reason that might count as an 'other' exemption.

I think pretty much everybody understands that, but only some understand that the page Cornell was drawing the attention of BIPOC students to was almost entirely devoted to talking them out of requesting one.

Toni doesn't understand that. She said there was no ambiguity about whether Cornell was offering an exemption. "Extremely clear". She didn't even believe I believed it--she accused me of just wanting to argue.

And the last paragraph you wrote, the irony (and incoherence) of talking people out of requesting an exemption that some people believe that Cornell wasn't even offering in the first place--not even considered.

And there's that word again.

"Offering".

As though Cornell was holding out exemptions on a silver platter for students to pick up or wave away as they pleased. So, let's go over it again and find out what Cornell is actually "offering".

1. Cornell requires students at the Ithaca campus to be vaccinated against the flu as part of it's COVID-19 response.

2. New York state law allows two kinds of exemptions from that kind of health mandate, medical and religious, and Cornell requires more than just a simple "please, may I have an exemption" to get one. A request for a medical exemption must be written by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner and state that a valid contraindication to vaccination exists. The exemption must specify which immunizations are contraindicated and why, and how long the medical contraindication will last. A request for a religious exemption must be in the form of a written and signed statement that explains in their own words why they are requesting this religious exemption, describe the religious principles that guide their objection to immunization, indicate whether they are opposed to all immunizations, and if not, the religious basis that prohibits this particular one.

3. Students with other concerns may request an exemption.

4. Students with extenuating circumstances may request an exemption.

That is the sum and total of what Cornell is "offering". Students are being "offered" the chance to request an exemption. There are no guarantees a student will receive one, not even the students requesting exemptions for medical reasons. In fact, all the Cornell Health pages linked here argue against exemptions and in favor of flu vaccine shots for all students.

There is nothing incoherent about talking someone out of requesting exemption from a policy designed to keep the school open during a pandemic, even if you simultaneously acknowledge they may have reason to request one.

 

[Metaphor]

Toni doesn't understand that. She said there was no ambiguity about whether Cornell was offering an exemption. "Extremely clear". She didn't even believe I believed it--she accused me of just wanting to argue.

And the last paragraph you wrote, the irony (and incoherence) of talking people out of requesting an exemption that some people believe that Cornell wasn't even offering in the first place--not even considered.

And there's that word again.

"Offering".

As though Cornell was holding out exemptions on a silver platter for students to pick up or wave away as they pleased. So, let's go over it again and find out what Cornell is actually "offering".

Cornell requires students at the Ithaca campus to be vaccinated against the flu as part of it's COVID-19 response. New York state law allows two kinds of exemptions from that kind of health mandate, medical and religious.

Students with other concerns may request an exemption.

Students with extenuating circumstances may request an exemption.

That is the sum and total of what Cornell is "offering". Students are being "offered" the chance to request an exemption. There are no guarantee a student will receive one, not even the ones requesting exemptions for medical reasons. In fact, all the Cornell Health pages linked here argue against exemptions and in favor of mass immunization of all students.

There is nothing incoherent about talking someone out of requesting exemption from a policy designed to keep the school open during a pandemic.

I don't mean it's incoherent for Cornell to offer exemptions even though it wants as many people as possible to have the vaccine.

I mean it's incoherent to try to talk people out of requesting an exemption on a particular basis if you were never offering an exemption on that basis in the first place.

 

[ruby sparks]

My issue is that they are clearly saying this can be a basis for exemption, which basically means that anyone can just give the excuse that they don't trust vaccines and be exempt. Are they seriously going to tell a student "Nah, we don't think your subjective fears are sincere."

I agree. Cornell would surely now have difficulty dismissing all applications for exemptions based on concerns they have specifically highlighted, and explicitly said are valid.

However, they may make it difficult to get an exemption, unless, as someone else here suggested might happen, the BIPOC applicant can substantiate their own personal case.

But we do not know how onerous they would have been, or will be. They certainly tried to persuade BIPOC not to apply, but that is a slightly different issue to asking what would happen to their applications if they did apply anyway. I think Cornell have made it slightly tricky for themselves by highlighting this particular concern and validating it.

 

[ruby sparks]

However, on a separate note, I think it's become gradually clear to everyone during the thread, including me, and I'm guessing the person who started the thread, that the initial complaints (made on behalf of white people) were over-egged.

Virtue-signalling? Imo, probably yes, to some extent. A bit too woke? Again imo yes, a bit, especially in the circumstances (health precautions at a time of unprecedented national health crisis). But not what was originally presented.

 

[TomC]

Students are being "offered" the chance to request an exemption. There are no guarantee a student will receive one,

Despite all the diplomatic explanation, this is the bottom line. Cornell hasn't given an exemption to anyone at all.

All I'm really seeing, about BIPOC and Wokeness, is an attempt to head off a potential issue by explaining in advance why such exemptions are unlikely to be granted.
Tom