******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
Chronicle of Higher Education
Faculty Are Not Cannon Fodder
Despite what they say, administrators have no idea who is vulnerable to
the virus
By Maggie Levantovskaya MAY 28, 2020 PREMIUM
The last time I entered a classroom, I pulled my sleeve over my hand to
open the door. As students took their seats, I passed around a small
pump bottle of Purell. What else could I do? I was on multiple
immunosuppressants, which kept my lupus under control but also made me
especially vulnerable to viral infections, like Covid-19. “What if I
already have it?” I wondered. “What if one of my students has it?” I
stood at the front of the class, terrified of the air we were all breathing.
It was still early in March but Santa Clara County, where I work,
already had 71 confirmed Covid-19 cases. Down the road, Stanford
University had announced its transition to online instruction. The night
before teaching what turned out to be my last in-person class, I shared
my concerns with colleagues. They urged me to move my classes online,
but I showed up the next day anyway. I was at the end of a one-year
contract and couldn’t afford to attract any negative attention. After
seven years of precarious employment, it’s not the first time I’ve had
to put my job before my health.
“Will we return or won’t we?” That question has been on my mind every
day of quarantine. Then, in mid-May, with all the suddenness of a power
outage, my employer, Santa Clara University, announced plans to reopen
its campuses in the fall. Many other colleges have also declared their
intentions to resume in-person instruction. Universities are complex
machines, and there are many factors to weigh in making these decisions.
But by pushing for a return to campus in the midst of a pandemic, these
institutions are sending a clear message to the chronically ill and
disabled: Finances and prestige are more important than the safety of
those who are most vulnerable.
Are finances and prestige more important than the safety of those who
are most vulnerable?
Calls to reopen colleges started rolling in just a few weeks after many
schools stopped in-person instruction. Mitch Daniels, president of
Purdue, infamously wrote that his campus community is “made up of young
people,” with 80 percent of Purdue’s population occupying the “35 and
under” age bracket (thus echoing Oklahoma State football coach Mike
Gundy’s controversial comments that “A lot of them can fight [the virus]
off with their natural body”). But raw numbers never tell the whole
story. Many people are diagnosed with a severe chronic illness before
the age of 35. I was a 26-year-old graduate student when I found out I
had lupus. Moreover, colleges are not closed ecosystems — no campus is
an island. In coffee shops, grocery stores, and on the street, students
and employees interact with kids, the elderly, doctors, and essential
workers.
Less than a week after Daniels’s statement, The New York Times published
a pro-opening op-ed from Brown University’s president, Christina Paxson.
Paxson said she put her trust in “evidence-based public health
protocols” such as requiring students and employees to wear masks. But
masks protect you only if you (1) have them and (2) know how to use them
properly. More important, social distancing and masks don’t prevent
infection if exposure, even in low doses, happens over a prolonged
period of time. Even in a community with what ableist culture deems
“favorable” demographics, a virus can spread with disastrous effects —
but not all people will suffer the same. Those who happen to be
immunocompromised are at greater risk for becoming ill and dying. That
is, people like me.
For all the talk of disability awareness on campuses, higher education
can be quite hostile to those who are ill and disabled. Such hostility
encourages us to keep our conditions a secret, if we can, and to suffer
in silence. But because I’m open about my disease, colleagues and
students regularly share with me the difficulties they experience. Many
have confided in me about living with Crohn’s, Pott’s, diabetes,
rheumatoid arthritis, and other conditions requiring treatments that
compromise the immune system.
There are many reasons to keep these diagnoses a secret. For one, people
value their privacy and want to avoid the intrusive questions and
microaggressions that often follow disclosure even in academic settings,
where one is presumed to know better. People also worry about being
discriminated against or simply underestimated. For years, I told only a
few colleague friends about my health problems, and only when I was
desperate for social or material support. The cult of productivity
thrives in academia, and I worried about appearing to be “a burden” or a
“bad investment.” Incurable diseases come with uncertain prognoses and
uncertain futures; I didn’t want to appear to be what hiring committees
refer to as a “flight risk.” My fear of being overlooked for a
tenure-track position because of my illness overshadowed the need to
speak openly about a central aspect of my identity and everyday life.
This is all to say that college administrators have no idea what
percentage of their community is especially vulnerable, and that any
estimate based on age or disclosure should be approached with skepticism.
One argument that consistently comes up in discussions of the future of
teaching is that an online education is simply subpar. Paxson, for
example, waxes nostalgic about “the fierce intellectual debates that
just aren’t the same on Zoom.” Believe me, I miss the dynamism of the
classroom, too. But is it worth risking my life over? Hell, no! In a
global pandemic, fierce in-person intellectual debates cannot take
priority over safety and health. What good is winning a debate if you’re
ill, or dead?
These issues were crystallized for me when I struggled to get a refill
of my prescription for hydroxychloroquine. The drug touted by President
Trump as a silver bullet for Covid-19 is a necessary ingredient in my
lupus management. The resulting shortage had me contacting endless
doctors and pharmacies while worrying about lapsing into a lupus flare
and becoming even more vulnerable to Covid-19. As I sat on hold with yet
another pharmacy, I realized that I could live with whatever fierceness
was lacking in my Zoom classes.
At my university, one-third of the faculty members are over the age of
60 — but age is only part of the story. More than half of the faculty
members are non-tenure track. Nationally, more than 70 percent of all
college faculty members are contingently employed (i.e., not on the
tenure track). With that precariousness comes fear. Will that fear be
enough to prompt us to refuse to return to in-person teaching in the
fall? As the reporter Colleen Flaherty writes, universities pushing for
reopening are “making a big assumption: that faculty members will show
up to teach.” Sadly, though, I think that is a grimly safe assumption —
for the same reasons that I, an immunocompromised lecturer, still showed
up to teach in March. Given the state of the academic job market, the
austerity measures already taken by colleges, and the general state of
the economy, what other options do we have?
I truly hope my university understands what it is asking us to do, what
(and whom) it is asking to be put at risk. If it truly understands, then
it won't resume in-person classes in the fall.
Maggie Levantovskaya is a writer, editor and contingent faculty member
at Santa Clara University.
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
