As schools begin to reopen, the coronavirus threat continues to loom over the country. Despite tens of thousands of reported COVID-19 cases having arisen already from college campuses across America, Boston University is committed to inviting students back.
As irresponsible as this may be, there is no stopping it. Students have already trickled their way back to campus, and to reverse course now would require a worst-case scenario to play out — following in the footsteps of other schools’ failures.
In comparison to many other institutions, BU can boast of a much more thorough plan for the return of its student population:
All undergraduate students will be tested for COVID-19 twice a week as well as immediately upon arriving for move-in. A strict mask mandate requires facial coverings, all of which must meet the proper criteria, to be worn in all public places on campus, including classrooms, common living areas and on public transportation.
The University will suspend not just those who host gatherings of more than 25 students, but those who even attend them — all without refunds for tuition or room and board.
BU is incredibly privileged to have the resources it does. Smaller schools most likely cannot afford the high cost of establishing on-campus testing labs that process results at such a quick rate. Reopening and revamping a campus during a pandemic is no cheap task, and BU could not have confidently predicted if the revenue from in-person attendance would outweigh the costs.
So, as much as there is worth criticizing about BU’s reopening plans, we should not neglect to give credit where it’s due.
The University is tackling an unprecedented yet highly consequential endeavor, and every misstep is amplified under the weight of public scrutiny. Like any first attempt, it cannot possibly be perfect. But it is indeed clear the administration has thoughtfully, and to the best of its ability, planned out as safe a return to campus as possible under these circumstances.
However, the school’s preparations have consistently centered only on its undergraduate student population. While it has spent the summer months catering specifically to this group, it has failed other members of both the BU and Boston community: graduate students, faculty and local residents.
Keeping BU’s biggest pool of students safe, while essential, is not enough. Undergraduates were the only ones who — if they were not international — had full freedom over whether to return or not. For others, no such right was granted.
PhD students who have a teaching appointment must return to campus in order to receive their stipend. Heavy limitations on the hours graduate students can work per week effectively force them to depend on that stipend to afford school, meaning this policy asks students to choose between risking their health or their education.
Meanwhile, BU’s lack of clear communication continually leaves faculty in the dark, and many major decisions have been made without adequate input from the professors they will impact. It was unfair, for example, for the University to promise a hybrid learning environment before first having solicited comprehensive feedback from instructors themselves.
And the neighboring non-BU residents in Allston, Brighton and Fenway might be screwed over most of all. Just when Massachusetts was becoming a model state for its handling of the pandemic, back-to-school season rolled around.
City Councilor Kenzie Bok has urged BU and Northeastern University to go remote for the Fall, warning of heightened dangers brought in by out-of-state students and off-campus activities. Councilor Liz Breadon, too, wrote to BU and Boston College with similar concerns. Their sentiments reflect the fears embedded in the residents they represent.
However many guidelines are put in place and however severe the consequences, there will always be certain elements that cannot be feasibly controlled. Parties and other large gatherings are undeniably hotspots for the virus to spread, but that’s not the only way cases can rise.
Students commute to class, work and other social events via public transportation. BU is also located near many retail stores and restaurants. Just as students in these spaces can contract the virus from residents, students will pass it on to them just as easily.
Local Bostonians are rightfully scared of what’s to come. And yet, they have no choice but to watch it happen.
If the University is to be a responsible neighbor, it must take the initiative to minimize harm to others. It has failed to show any inclination of doing that so far — but it’s not too late.
If BU has the capacity to process more than 5,000 COVID-19 test results a day, then it cannot be impossible to extend that service to the surrounding community. Local residents who live in close proximity to students deserve to be offered free testing, at the least.
At this point, the administration has made evident its dedication to protecting its undergraduates. Going forward, it’s time to expand the spotlight.
Graduate students and faculty members are just as vital a part of the BU community, and they deserve to be heard. These groups are likely even more committed to university-wide safety than top administrators are, because they each have individual stakes in it. So not only is transparency and consultation with them a bare-minimum courtesy, but it can only benefit BU to listen to their ideas and criticisms.
At the same time, the people of Boston have already suffered from the consequences of this pandemic. If they must be hit by another potential wave — at the hands of a wealthy and powerful institution, no less — it’s only right that they receive some protection. Access to free and frequent testing is one place to start.
Bottom line: reopening campus affects so many more people than just the students who choose to return. To truly ensure a successful semester, BU must take into consideration the needs of all those impacted by its decisions — not simply those who fork over the most housing dollars.
“A strict mask mandate requires facial coverings, all of which must meet the proper criteria, to be worn in all public places on campus, including classrooms, common living areas and on public transportation.”
Already, dozens of students go maskless on campus every day with no repercussions. I’d modify the statement in this article to say that the administration has planned out as safe-SOUNDING a return to campus as possible.
Look at actions, not words. Pledging enforcement of safety guidelines is not the same as actual enforcement.
Thank you for this editorial. While BU can justifiably boast about the testing centers it’s established, its reopening plan has left so many other less glamorous and photo-ready issues unaddressed, ranging from how people with children enrolled in local public school systems can come to work when those children are at home doing remote learning, to the more comic–but still rather important!–question of what happens during the change of classes, when everyone wants to go to the bathroom at the same time.
Also, while it’s clear that the University has kept undergrads front and center in their planning, I’m not sure how “catered to” these students are going to feel as they find out that their in-person classes are going to be Zoom sessions that include their classmates who aren’t physically present. This is another detail that the University’s plan hasn’t clearly addressed: why bother gathering half of the members of a seminar into one room if all they will be doing when they get there is staring at their screens, especially when a) online conversations don’t work very well when some of the participants are wearing masks and b) doing so puts people at risk?
It may be an impressive testing apparatus but I disagree that BU has done a good job making things safe for undergrads. There are huge holes in the plan eg. if a student has an in person classes followed by a remote class and they live 30 min away, how do they get home in time? Where do students eat between classes, especially if they live off campus? Not to mention the fact that BU has already proven it won’t enforce its rules against large gatherings. It’s also true that BU decided to reopen before finalizing many important details and ignoring input from faculty, so I can’t agree with this article’s claim that BU has put in an honest effort to keep people safe: their main priority is a steady flow of income.
To add insult to injury, faculty was informed that that if one of their students tests positive for COVID, they won’t be notified as not to violate the student’s rights.
Isn’t this how contact tracing works? What about keeping the faculty safe? Their family safe? The other students safe?
There’s been absolutely no plan put in place for when the faculty become ill. Many professors have their elderly parents living with them. Without knowing if they’re at risk they could be exposing their most vulnerable family members to this disease all because
the university is choosing profit over people.