Cornell university makes vaccination mandatory for whites only
This article really beggars belief.. say what you will about aiming for equality through equity but excluding "BIPOC" from the vaccination requirements for no particular reason (the one given is quite outrageous in ones view given the circumstances) seems like a willful and deliberate disregard for the safety and, indeed, equity of their students.
It's almost as bizarre as the UK governments idea that a full meal will prevent the spread of Covid. At least Westminster's idiocy doesnt serve to enflame racial tensions for, well, no real point. By all means, if someone here can see how this policy seeks to bring equality and combat racism i beg of you to indulge me. Alas, from where i'm sitting, this simply comes across as a downright dangerous (and i mean that literally) bit of pandering to, well, i'm not even sure whom theyre trying to pander to here as anyone who really believes that its somehow 'racist' to make so called "BIPOC", as well as white people, get a vaccine is a deluded crank who has no real business in being allowed to voice their delusions. After all, this is not the 1930's and this is not Tuskegee.
wonder if British universities will follow Cornell’s innovative approach to ensuring students are protected from wretched viruses? The American institution has received plaudits for its rigorous regime. Students who refuse to have the flu vaccine will be barred from the Cornell libraries and other campus buildings — or, at least, they will if they are white. ‘Students of colour’ can decline to receive the vaccine. Why?Cornell explains: ‘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.’ The university authorities give a little more detail about what those concerns might be: ‘Recent acts of violence against Black people by law enforcement may contribute to feelings of distrust or powerlessness.’ So, white kids must be tested and vaccinated or face being kicked out, while black students are invited to register their preference for exemption, largely on the grounds that George Floyd was killed by a policemen in a state 1,000 miles away.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/this-has-been-the-year-of-epic-derangement/amp
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/509059-cornell-university-vaccine-white-only/
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/editorial-cornell-university-makes-flu-vaccination-mandatory-but-only-for-white-students/
https://health.cornell.edu/resources/especially-for/students-of-color/compliance-testing-flu-vaccine-requirements
https://covid.cornell.edu/_assets/files/behavioral-compact.pdf
It's almost as bizarre as the UK governments idea that a full meal will prevent the spread of Covid. At least Westminster's idiocy doesnt serve to enflame racial tensions for, well, no real point. By all means, if someone here can see how this policy seeks to bring equality and combat racism i beg of you to indulge me. Alas, from where i'm sitting, this simply comes across as a downright dangerous (and i mean that literally) bit of pandering to, well, i'm not even sure whom theyre trying to pander to here as anyone who really believes that its somehow 'racist' to make so called "BIPOC", as well as white people, get a vaccine is a deluded crank who has no real business in being allowed to voice their delusions. After all, this is not the 1930's and this is not Tuskegee.
wonder if British universities will follow Cornell’s innovative approach to ensuring students are protected from wretched viruses? The American institution has received plaudits for its rigorous regime. Students who refuse to have the flu vaccine will be barred from the Cornell libraries and other campus buildings — or, at least, they will if they are white. ‘Students of colour’ can decline to receive the vaccine. Why?Cornell explains: ‘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.’ The university authorities give a little more detail about what those concerns might be: ‘Recent acts of violence against Black people by law enforcement may contribute to feelings of distrust or powerlessness.’ So, white kids must be tested and vaccinated or face being kicked out, while black students are invited to register their preference for exemption, largely on the grounds that George Floyd was killed by a policemen in a state 1,000 miles away.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/this-has-been-the-year-of-epic-derangement/amp
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/509059-cornell-university-vaccine-white-only/
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/editorial-cornell-university-makes-flu-vaccination-mandatory-but-only-for-white-students/
https://health.cornell.edu/resources/especially-for/students-of-color/compliance-testing-flu-vaccine-requirements
https://covid.cornell.edu/_assets/files/behavioral-compact.pdf
Scroll to see replies
I mean, considering we know that minorities have suffered worse from this crisis.. to make a policy that forces the group that has suffered less to take the vaccine but not the one that has suffered more? Seems to me a case of trying to be so anti-racist, that you go fully around the circle and end up being pretty racist.
I mean advocating a policy that creates an unequal set of requirements is one thing - there are plenty of occasions where this can be justified - but to have an institute advocate a policy that creates an unequal set of requirements based on race, that harms minorities.. that sounds like institutional racism to me.
I mean advocating a policy that creates an unequal set of requirements is one thing - there are plenty of occasions where this can be justified - but to have an institute advocate a policy that creates an unequal set of requirements based on race, that harms minorities.. that sounds like institutional racism to me.
Original post by fallen_acorns
I mean, considering we know that minorities have suffered worse from this crisis.. to make a policy that forces the group that has suffered less to take the vaccine but not the one that has suffered more? Seems to me a case of trying to be so anti-racist, that you go fully around the circle and end up being pretty racist.
I mean advocating a policy that creates an unequal set of requirements is one thing - there are plenty of occasions where this can be justified - but to have an institute advocate a policy that creates an unequal set of requirements based on race, that harms minorities.. that sounds like institutional racism to me.
I mean advocating a policy that creates an unequal set of requirements is one thing - there are plenty of occasions where this can be justified - but to have an institute advocate a policy that creates an unequal set of requirements based on race, that harms minorities.. that sounds like institutional racism to me.
It is mind bogglingly perverse, especially due to the points you raised. But their justification just seems to make it even more bizarre. Who ever came up with this particular bit of woke outreach should be sacked for the sheer incompetence of it.
I mean, it wouldnt seem like too much of a hyperbolic comparison to compare this to the old segregationist laws/apartheid in various states and nations around the world with 1 set of rules for some and another for others. Coming from what is supposedly a highly respected academic institution no less, very weird.
Original post by Napp
It is mind bogglingly perverse
Everything about this whole racialisation trend is perverse. Racism in all its forms is just ugly.
Original post by Ascend
Everything about this whole racialisation trend is perverse. Racism in all its forms is just ugly.
It's like these people have reverted to 3 year olds where their logic extends to 'this bad thing happened to this group so, to make it better, we'll reverse it'. As you said though, this perverse fetishisation with race (and indeed anything trans related as well, for that matter) seems to do little to no good for society other than pushing most normal people who occupied the middle ground to either extreme. The age of polarisation is, alas, upon us.
Original post by Napp
This article really beggars belief.. say what you will about aiming for equality through equity but excluding "BIPOC" from the vaccination requirements for no particular reason (the one given is quite outrageous in ones view given the circumstances) seems like a willful and deliberate disregard for the safety and, indeed, equity of their students.
It's almost as bizarre as the UK governments idea that a full meal will prevent the spread of Covid. At least Westminster's idiocy doesnt serve to enflame racial tensions for, well, no real point. By all means, if someone here can see how this policy seeks to bring equality and combat racism i beg of you to indulge me. Alas, from where i'm sitting, this simply comes across as a downright dangerous (and i mean that literally) bit of pandering to, well, i'm not even sure whom theyre trying to pander to here as anyone who really believes that its somehow 'racist' to make so called "BIPOC", as well as white people, get a vaccine is a deluded crank who has no real business in being allowed to voice their delusions. After all, this is not the 1930's and this is not Tuskegee.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/this-has-been-the-year-of-epic-derangement/amp
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/509059-cornell-university-vaccine-white-only/
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/editorial-cornell-university-makes-flu-vaccination-mandatory-but-only-for-white-students/
https://health.cornell.edu/resources/especially-for/students-of-color/compliance-testing-flu-vaccine-requirements
https://covid.cornell.edu/_assets/files/behavioral-compact.pdf
It's almost as bizarre as the UK governments idea that a full meal will prevent the spread of Covid. At least Westminster's idiocy doesnt serve to enflame racial tensions for, well, no real point. By all means, if someone here can see how this policy seeks to bring equality and combat racism i beg of you to indulge me. Alas, from where i'm sitting, this simply comes across as a downright dangerous (and i mean that literally) bit of pandering to, well, i'm not even sure whom theyre trying to pander to here as anyone who really believes that its somehow 'racist' to make so called "BIPOC", as well as white people, get a vaccine is a deluded crank who has no real business in being allowed to voice their delusions. After all, this is not the 1930's and this is not Tuskegee.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/this-has-been-the-year-of-epic-derangement/amp
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/509059-cornell-university-vaccine-white-only/
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/editorial-cornell-university-makes-flu-vaccination-mandatory-but-only-for-white-students/
https://health.cornell.edu/resources/especially-for/students-of-color/compliance-testing-flu-vaccine-requirements
https://covid.cornell.edu/_assets/files/behavioral-compact.pdf
wow...that's wokeness gone mad.
Utterly stupid too as any white person who didn't want to take the vaccine could just say they "identified" as BIPOC and those idiots woud be too woke to challenge them on it.
None of this surprises me anymore and it's just more proof that academia, in particular social sciences and humanities, needs defunding.
But I can't say I have heard "BIPOC" before. Is this the latest arbitrary and soulless acronym we are supposed to be using to denote a vastly diverse spectrum of human demographics who may in practice have very little in common with one another (with the exception of 'not being white', which is apparently all that matters). I was always under the impression it was generally regarded as a bad thing to divide people into stark "them and us" categories as it tends to be a precursor to conflict, but I don't have a degree in critical race theory or whiteness studies, so what would an uneducated pleb like me know?
But I can't say I have heard "BIPOC" before. Is this the latest arbitrary and soulless acronym we are supposed to be using to denote a vastly diverse spectrum of human demographics who may in practice have very little in common with one another (with the exception of 'not being white', which is apparently all that matters). I was always under the impression it was generally regarded as a bad thing to divide people into stark "them and us" categories as it tends to be a precursor to conflict, but I don't have a degree in critical race theory or whiteness studies, so what would an uneducated pleb like me know?
I thought there might be something that has been misrepresented, but as it turns out it is simply just a racist policy.
Original post by DiddyDec
I thought there might be something that has been misrepresented, but as it turns out it is simply just a racist policy.
Indeed, i first picked it up from a post by Liddle and assumed he was hyperbolising but the fact that the only organisations who appear to have covered such a troublingly apartheidesque policy are RT and Liddle is rather telling in its own right.
Original post by Wōden
But I can't say I have heard "BIPOC" before.
Its Black Indigenous and People Of Colour apparently. (surely that should be BIAPOC.)
Hang around for a while and there will be another one come along.
Posting to subscribe
This certainly seems like an interesting covid policy from an education institution.
Not really sure how sensible it is though.
This certainly seems like an interesting covid policy from an education institution.
Not really sure how sensible it is though.
Original post by 04MR17
Posting to subscribe
This certainly seems like an interesting covid policy from an education institution.
Not really sure how sensible it is though.
This certainly seems like an interesting covid policy from an education institution.
Not really sure how sensible it is though.
It seems utterly self defeating, no? Be they allowing the exclusion of a group based on race/sex/age/views on satsuma's being the dominant form of fruit it makes a mockery of actually stamping out the virus. Akin to sealing all the hatches on a submarine but not that one at the back
Original post by Blue_Cow
I thought this was some sort of sick joke at first when I read the title.
What an awful and terribly patronising policy.
What an awful and terribly patronising policy.
It is interesting how so many race based policies, particularly in America, seen to be quite so patronising. A somewhat ironic touch considering one of the demands of ethnic minorities is to be treated as equals.. not molly coddled. That in itself rather harks back to the age of empire where one of the rationales given was that the natives were too incompetent to do things for themselves so needed the white mans help to join the 'world of civilised nations'
. Alas the examples of race based policies of this nature (and some which are far worse) seems legion at the moment.
So first thing's first: This policy doesn't harm BIPOC. The idea behind it is that there is a history of black people being used as guinea pigs. (Ref: The Tuskegee Syphilis study as an example).
The thought process behind this is that the vaccine should be made available, but not compulsory, so people can choose whether or not to take it.
That said, it should be that the vaccine isn't compulsory at all. The reason that vaccines generally take years and years to develop is that it's impossible to know the long-term effects of one without taking years of studies. For examples of why this matters, look at the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Vaccines help. They do, and they are -generally- safe. It's a risk, though, as there can be allergic reactions or long-term complications. Forcing people to take it is generally bad, and saying you're only forcing one race to take it means you're forcing them to be used as the guinea pigs. While I applaud people taking the vaccines, and I would say it's the right choice, it should always be a choice.
The thought process behind this is that the vaccine should be made available, but not compulsory, so people can choose whether or not to take it.
That said, it should be that the vaccine isn't compulsory at all. The reason that vaccines generally take years and years to develop is that it's impossible to know the long-term effects of one without taking years of studies. For examples of why this matters, look at the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Vaccines help. They do, and they are -generally- safe. It's a risk, though, as there can be allergic reactions or long-term complications. Forcing people to take it is generally bad, and saying you're only forcing one race to take it means you're forcing them to be used as the guinea pigs. While I applaud people taking the vaccines, and I would say it's the right choice, it should always be a choice.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
So first thing's first: This policy doesn't harm BIPOC. The idea behind it is that there is a history of black people being used as guinea pigs. (Ref: The Tuskegee Syphilis study as an example).
The thought process behind this is that the vaccine should be made available, but not compulsory, so people can choose whether or not to take it.
The thought process behind this is that the vaccine should be made available, but not compulsory, so people can choose whether or not to take it.
No one's saying it is harming "bipoc" (god i loath these ridiculous acronyms) it is an innately racist policy though. Plus the odd requirement that white people have to get the vaccine so, depending on your view of vaccines, harms them i guess
. Using the Tuskegee as an example for excerpting ethnics from the requirement (odd given that incident was only used on blacks if memory serves?) seems specious at best though. That would be akin to saying those of Jewish extraction dont have to be jailed, gypsies also being exempted etc. etc. basically the point is using historical examples, many starting to fall out of living memory, is of dubious utility. America today is obviously not the same as the one that committed that particular atrocity (not to mention the experiments they conducted on addicts)Original post by Napp
No one's saying it is harming "bipoc"
Post #2 does
Original post by 04MR17
Post #2 does
Do you not think it does?
I can think of quite a few ways that this policy inadvertently harms minorities. 2, is the obvious medical one, but 1+3 are social harms.
1, it creates suspicion - if your a person on campus, you can now trust that all the white people you meet have been vaccinated, but when you meet a minority, you're not sure - that sounds like a perfect set up for inadvertent/subtle discrimination to me. If I'm a lecturer on campus, after months of this policy, you can bet that I'm going to have more of a flash of worry about shaking a minorities hand, or any physical interaction, than a white student.
2, it plants (or grows) the seeds of doubt inside minorities minds about the safety of vaccines. We already have enough anti-vaxers around, to suggest another possible reason not to take it, to the most vulnerable group, is dangerous to me and will likely lead to some not taking it.
3, In general, it fosters a racially divided way of thinking, which in the long-run is harms minorities as its far more dangerous for white people to think in this racialised way, then it is for minorities to do so.
I know the people behind this mean well, but it is an idiotic policy. There is no need to add a racial angle to vaccine-doubt, when its already a huge problem in American society - doing so is dangerous and will harm the people who refuse to take the vaccine beacuse of it (in this case minorities).
Original post by Ramipril
This kind of **** makes me so embarrassed to be viewed as being part of a 'minority' group.
Not your fault, the policy was probably written by white people.
One the one hand, I understand that they want to be sensitive considering historical situations where black/indigenous people were forced to be part of medical experiments.
On the other hand, they just apply this logic to discriminatory ends. If they want to be sympathetic to distrust of power, why aren't they making vaccines optional outright? This reasoning directly lends itself to vaccine doubt, as another poster said. There's also the issue of implicit racism...
As usual this is another case of well-meaning 'woke' admins creating more problems. Maybe if they actually consulted people of colour, it could have been avoided.
On the other hand, they just apply this logic to discriminatory ends. If they want to be sympathetic to distrust of power, why aren't they making vaccines optional outright? This reasoning directly lends itself to vaccine doubt, as another poster said. There's also the issue of implicit racism...
As usual this is another case of well-meaning 'woke' admins creating more problems. Maybe if they actually consulted people of colour, it could have been avoided.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Covid 19 vaccine
- English Literature flashcard
- Imperial,UCL vs Cornell, Columbia,UPenn,Brown international prestige/reputation?
- Child Nursing
- Study abroad options at Warwick - Cornell.
- How to use a laptop and a tablet for note taking
- Oral health science- University of Essex
- American university
- (Official) St George's, University of London A100 Offer Holders 2023 Entry
- Vaccinations for Thailand
- study techniques
- How to revise for a-level mocks
- Malaria vaccine for children
- Would you rather attend...?
- Unable to get MenACWY vaccine before uni
- Immunity testing & getting childhood vaccines as an adult
- Gcse Edexel imaginative writing
- 5 note-taking methods all students should know
- Are 7A*s and 3A*s good enough for Ivy League?
- LSE vs Ivy League
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
