A Deadly Commitment to Student Self-Governance
Under pressure for its plan to reopen, UVA has a simple explanation for why it will succeed where other schools have failed: its students are greater and gooder than the others.
(UVA Dean of Students Allen Groves addressing students about the university’s reopening plan/University of Virginia [Fair use for educational and critical purposes])
On May 13, as colleges across the country struggled to devise strategies to reopen for the fall semester, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, and White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx convened a virtual call with 14 university presidents, a meeting originally intended to be in person until several of Pence’s staffers tested positive for the virus. According to the White House’s readout of the conversation, UVA President Jim Ryan was among those in attendance. (UVA’s medical center, proximity to DC, and public school status all likely helped it secure a spot, although it probably didn’t hurt that Marc Short was hired as a senior fellow at the Miller Center in August 2018 before stepping down in February 2019 to become Pence’s Chief of Staff.) Their conversation covered topics ranging from compliance with federal regulations to the potential for lawsuits, with two presidents directly inquiring about the possibility of receiving liability protection, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on May 15. No definitive answer was given on whether colleges would be provided immunity from lawsuits, but the issue has been “a sticking point in Senate talks over education relief in another round of coronavirus stimulus legislation,” according to an August 5 report by Bloomberg news.
It is thus hardly surprising that when colleges’ precarious outbreak prevention strategies fail, university leaders are swift to condemn students. After reopening its campus for hardly a week, the University of Notre Dame was forced on August 18 to suspend in-person instruction for at least two weeks following a spike in virus cases. In a video message to students, university president Reverend John I. Jenkins — who was also in attendance for the virtual call on May 13 and had previously published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that reopening was “worth the risk” — largely blamed off-campus student gatherings for ruining the university’s plans. Pleading with students to adhere to public health protocols, Jenkins noted that administrators originally considered sending students home, but chose not to because they are hopeful more stringent enforcement can once again make in-person classes feasible.
UVA’s Dean Groves had a similar message for the university community on Saturday, August 22, stating in a video message to students that a safe return to Grounds is only possible if there is extraordinary, individual compliance with the university’s coronavirus protocols. Like President Ryan’s video announcement of August 9, Groves’s message relies on several fallacies. Acknowledging the disastrous reopenings of peer institutions, Groves nevertheless appears convinced that UVA students are simply superior than those of other colleges, asserting his faith that they will do better despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Given the sheer number of misleading statements made by Groves, I thought it would be best to break down his remarks, which are emboldened below.
It’s rare that I reach out to you through a video, but I felt that that’s the best way to have this important conversation. I’ve always tried to be transparent and honest with students in my communications, consistent with the respect I have for you as exceptionally accomplished young adults. Now this fall isn’t a normal semester. You know the challenges we face, here and elsewhere, in trying to contain the spread of COVID-19. The sacrifices required of each of us can seem daunting or even unfair at times, but the stakes are too high not to step up and do the right thing.
This framing falsely suggests that bringing students back for in-person instruction is an inevitability, and acknowledges that doing so is itself an extreme risk.
You’ve seen the recent headlines of schools that sought to open for in-person, on-campus education this fall, only to quickly reverse course when it became clear a material number of students were not complying with requirements and expectations around social distancing, mask wearing, and limits on the size of gatherings. Protection of public health drove these decisions, as it must.
The decision to reopen was presumably not driven by similar considerations.
Our ACC peers, UNC and NC State, have now gone online, joining many other schools across the country. We have not, hoping to offer as many of you as possible an on-Grounds experience even if different from a normal year.
Remarkably, Groves omits during this video that the university has already delayed its plan to reopen by two weeks, citing a rise in cases and volatility in the supply chain for testing materials.
We know how much it means to you, given the finite amount of time each of you has to be a student at UVA. We want you to be here, if your own health and safety permit, and experience your first year of college, or your fourth and final year. In fact, every year. But I need every one of you to do your part to make that happen.
Forgive me for being skeptical of the notion that UVA is pushing forward with its plan to reopen out of compassion for its students, rather than a homicidal devotion to the school’s bottom line.
I read a really powerful message yesterday from the leadership of Vanderbilt to their students on this very subject, and this in particular stood out to me: one person’s decision to shrug off their responsibility for a night of fun can be the reason an entire class misses its senior year, or why a student for whom Vanderbilt is the safest home they know, is forced to leave.
A plan to reopen pinned on the responsible decision-making of individual college students is almost certainly doomed to fail, since a collective problem cannot rely on individual effort. As I pointed out in my previous post, hiding behind the plights of vulnerable students whose safety depends upon on-campus housing is dubious at best, since those students could be offered this housing in extenuating circumstances even if classes go online. (The UVA chapter of YDSA is specifically calling for this accommodation.)
Well that same thing holds true for us at UVA. In a pandemic, one person’s bad decision has a direct impact on the health and safety of others.
Correct, which is why it’s probably a bad idea to bring thousands of students back together.
The university has made very clear what must occur for us to offer an on-Grounds experience this fall. These things are non-negotiable and essential to keep everyone healthy and safe. They are as follows.
I love a good list.
One: There can be no gatherings in excess of 15 people, whether on Grounds or off, this fall. Again, no more than 15 people. Period. You can still gather in smaller groups with close friends, and those are often the most meaningful interactions anyway. But know that we are very firm on this number. No more than 15, on Grounds or off, inside or outside.
The emphasis on limiting large gatherings is a crucial part of combating the spread of the virus, as other countries have found success by focusing on “cluster-busting.” Even if this restriction is widely observed, college students come into contact with countless numbers of smaller groups of people every day, and have to visit larger and more densely populated public spaces like grocery stores. It’s not hard to imagine how some students might try to circumvent this restriction by purposefully meeting in large numbers of small groups in succession. This restriction also seems somewhat pointless given that Groves explicitly encourages students to gather with close friends, and his insistence that 15 is a “firm” limit depends an awful lot on student self-reporting.
Number two: You must wear a face covering or mask over the mouth and nose any time you are out of your residence, including in common spaces within your residence hall or other shared spaces. Wear your masks on or off Grounds.
Considering that many students residing in dorms will be constantly fearful of contracting the virus and must abide by tight restrictions within their living spaces, one begins to wonder about the quality of this living experience.
And finally, number three: You must maintain a distance of six feet at all times when in the company of others. This applies whether indoors or outdoors, whether you’re in class or in a library, or simply walking across Grounds, or down the Corner. Six feet is the minimum, always.
Forget walking to classes with your friends. Surely the administration must know how farcical this restriction is considering that the sidewalks surrounding Grounds are seldom very wide, a directive that becomes even more infeasible to follow when thousands of students are walking around.
We must strictly enforce these directives if you are to have a chance at an on-Grounds experience this fall. They have been in place for many days now, and remain a firm expectation of all students going forward throughout the fall. Yet we’ve already begun to receive reports of some significant non-compliance.
This life-threatening behavior receives only a shrug from Groves, who declines to elaborate why early reports of “significant non-compliance” make the university confident that bringing back thousands of more students will only increase adherence to public safety protocols.
So here’s another point where I need to be very clear and frank with each of you. Enforcement will include serious sanctions for non-compliance. You may have seen in the last 48 hours that several peer institutions have not hesitated to immediately suspend students who decided to place others at risk by gathering in large numbers […] I need you to understand that we will do the same. A suspension for violating these required public health norms will be immediate and for the full semester at a minimum, with no opportunity to continue your courses in person or online […] This means your path to graduation will be delayed by the credits you won’t earn this fall. These are serious consequences, but we are in a serious public health crisis. It’s important to me that every student realizes the consequences of willful non-compliance. I don’t want anyone surprised if we’re forced to take this action.
If not killing other people is not enough to deter you from flouting public safety guidelines, perhaps the university can appeal to your self-interest by threatening you with draconian zero tolerance policies in the event your judgement lapses. This application of retributive justice seems ill-suited for young students who are prone to making mistakes, and as President Jenkins observed, contact tracers at Notre Dame who identified parties as outbreak clusters could not report the names of students to school authorities, since doing so would deter students from truthfully answering the tracers.
I have great faith in you and in our ability to be a responsible community. I’ve seen remarkable things from students in my 14 years as your Dean […] But I also know it doesn’t take many individuals behaving recklessly to place all of us at risk.
It’s hard to tell whether this observation stems from public safety guidelines, his experience as Dean, or both.
If an individual, or a group of individuals, choose to ignore the requirements of small gatherings of 15 or less, mask wearing, and social distancing, we will take immediate disciplinary action, including referral to the University Judiciary Committee, and in the most serious cases, immediate suspension and a ban from university grounds. The stakes are simply too high for us to act otherwise.
Groves does not clarify how this immediate enforcement will take place in lieu of action by an entity like the University Judiciary Committee. Under this punishment scheme, it is unclear if students can appeal these decisions, what rights they will have in the process, what the standard of evidence will be, and how students can expect to navigate an unarticulated disciplinary system that could cost thousands of dollars to run afoul of. These factors certainly risk creating an unfair process, especially for marginalized students.
Student organizations, whether a CIO or a club sport, a fraternity or a sorority, they’re also subject to serious sanctions for organized, collective activity that violates these clear expectations and required norms. These can include immediate termination of a group’s organizational agreement and relationship with UVA and all of the rights that flow from that agreement. We won’t be issuing a series of warnings or multiple strikes before we act. We need full compliance right out of the box, right now, and going forward.
Good news: administrators are finally starting to crack down on unsafe behaviors in student groups. Bad news: hazing — er, “pledging” — will have to be socially-distanced for the foreseeable future.
Let me close by saying that you have been dealt a difficult set of circumstances being in college during a pandemic of a scope unseen in over a century. I understand the sadness and frustration that this brings for each of you. But I also know that short-term sacrifice, like you’re being asked to make this fall, by complying with three straightforward public health requirements of small gatherings of 15 or less, mask wearing, and social distancing, will get us past this crisis faster and with fewer people harmed by the virus.
There is scant evidence that these guidelines will get us through this pandemic “faster.” For the most part, only a vaccine can do that. Groves’s reference to short-term sacrifice is also painfully ironic, considering that the University is sacrificing vulnerable residents of Charlottesville for the short-term gain of in-person instruction and more agreeable fiscal conditions.
I share your desire to be on-Grounds this fall. I miss the energy you bring to this place, and like you, I want us to succeed. So let’s step up and do this together.
We’re all in this together, until one of you decides to get too close on the Corner.
My sincere thanks to each of you for taking the time to listen to this brief message.
Over the course of eight minutes, Groves neglects to ever directly mention the wider community put at risk by the university’s reopening, so the following message from Lord Farquaad may help illustrate the university’s attitude toward local residents whose lives are at stake:
The University’s insistence to pursue reopening reveals a great deal about the incentives it is responding to. Colleges like UVA who demonstrate significant efforts to comply with federal and state guidelines, from elaborately designed living arrangements to zero tolerance policies, are probably less likely to face legal repercussions when they choose to reopen. Along with coming close to locking in tuition and housing dollars, UVA is uniquely able to draw on the mythical greatness of student self-governance to stress that the path forward is truly in the hands of students. This is, as I have said before, the UVA administrator’s two-step. In the event students fail to properly contain a highly transmissible virus, it’s unlikely administrators will stop pretending that the system of student self-governance was ever up to the task in the first place, or accept their responsibility for trying to reopen in spite of the known risks.
Student newspapers at other universities have strongly denounced their colleges’ plans to reopen. “Don’t Make Us Write Obituaries,” declared the Notre Dame’s Observer editorial board. “UNC Has a Clusterfuck on Its Hands,” wrote the Daily Tar Heel at UNC. Meanwhile, the editorial board of UVA’s Cavalier Daily has yet to weigh in concerning the university’s decision to reopen. After this is over, and these plans go awry, administrators who plowed ahead with reopening will undoubtedly face intense criticism for their decision to do so, and students must be united in their effort to hold them accountable. Considering UVA’s statements up to this point and the attitudes of others at peer institutions, one should probably not expect administrators to be remorseful for their role in reopening. According to the Daily Tar Heel, when UNC law professor Eric Muller questioned UNC administrators about the college’s plan to reopen and its underlying assumption of widespread student compliance, Provost Bob Blouin rebuffed the idea of never attempting to proceed with in-person instruction, replying instead that, “I don’t apologize for trying.”