Opinion: Searching for compromise as COVID creates division at Penn State
The constant bombardment of media, where watching CNN makes one fear half the country is dead with roving bands of cannibals in the streets, while Fox appears to promote COVID as a deep-state conspiracy to keep the Dems in power, has taken a toll on the public’s sanity. The debate over resuming in-person classes at Penn State is a microcosm of America: panic-driven faculty demanding to work from home, a faculty senate admonishing the university for returning to in-person classes, frustrated students, COVID deniers, and likely a quiet majority that simply want to return to classes in a safe but reasonable way, absent drama.
A civil society must balance between human rights, liberty, public safety and economic reality. The university’s position today is reasonable; faculty and staff must be vaccinated or tested weekly. Everyone must mask indoors. Faculty can teach from home for 25% of the semester without review; they can apply to teach from home for longer if needed.
The faculty senate’s view represents some faculty, but not all; the majority have not spoken. Many of my colleagues have expressed frustration regarding those who demand we all teach online for their idea of safety, but then see these same folks going to the grocery store, getting a coffee at Starbucks, and going out to eat. It is fair to ask, if it is OK for store workers, who work long shifts, and are exposed to thousands of unmasked people daily to be at risk for their convenience, then should it not be OK for us to go into a fully masked classroom 4-9 times a week for an hour? Demanding all faculty work from home for their safety while many other Americans, including store clerks, delivery persons and mail carriers, etc., who are in far more precarious situations, working to serve us, appears inconsistent at best.
Critically however, some have very legitimate reasons to teach from home and those must be respected: immune compromised, risk of a vaccine reaction, family members at risk and so forth should be given the option to work remotely. Thankfully, there is a university process to allow for remote teaching in those cases.
This does not mean we should not question the efficacy of university policies or disagree. Take mask-wearing; people often wear it as an earring or chin guard and masking is not required throughout the county; one could argue mask-wearing is not enough (apparently restaurant tables are COVID-safe zones?). Yet it remains one of the best options available. If worn properly it reduces the likelihood of transmission. Then there are many who think university policies are too strict; perhaps offering some free science classes for the community could help bridge the knowledge gap.
Informed debate is healthy and encouraged, but it serves no purpose to feed hysteria. We don’t have to agree on policies, but in democratic societies we have to work together and compromise. Name-calling, intimidation and coercion are not compromise. Compromise means finding a space with an acceptable level of public safety, some freedom over one’s body and choices of safety, but also serves our mission and keeps education on track. I disagree with many of the university’s and faculty senate’s choices, but I respect they are balancing difficult forces.
Whatever their policies, let’s set an example for our students and the country, get vaccinated, mask-up, social distance, and if one is able, teach in the most effective way, be that in-person or otherwise. If things get worse, be prepared to adjust, go remote when needed, but as a last resort, not a first one. When the going gets tough, help each other rise to the occasion and overcome. Panic is not a strategy. Going home is not a plan. Let’s make a long-term plan, based on data, but not emotion, and execute it; a plan with more community buy-in, and more cooperation from all. COVID is here to stay, and it is time we start acting like it.