Boston in the Red, an Article by Five BU Public Health Experts, and the Dashboard

On Wednesday this week, Boston moved into the official red zone for coronavirus risks, reflecting a rising replication rate in MA in general. BU’s weekly COVID-19 report notes that the number of positive results at BU increased last week, and Associate Provost Gloria Waters is quoted there as saying that she is “concerned about what we’ll see as we go into next week.”

Amongst other things, the increasing infection numbers mean that this would be a particularly good time for BU to revisit one of its policy decisions, previously criticized on this blog and elsewhere. Five professors from BU’s own School of Public Health this week published an article in Slate arguing that the science concerning aerosols tells us the policy at BU and elsewhere to not inform people who have been attending in person classes when other people in the class test positive should be rejected: “At minimum, we recommend that everyone in the classroom with a positive case be notified so that they can be instructed to quarantine or they can decide to quarantine in order to prevent additional community spread of COVID-19. This would be good public health policy.” Will BU listen to its own public health experts?

In other news this week, BU updated its COVID-19 Dashboard to finally display data for positive test results that use the number of people tested as a denominator, rather than only the number of tests. However, the dashboard only displays data of this kind in one place (in the area listing results for the last seven day period), and this is not the place where it is most needed.

The cumulative data from July 27 is still not being displayed with the right denominator. That is where the data most needs to be displayed in this way, as I explained back in late August. The percentage of positive tests there should keep going up (as the number of people tested stays roughly constant while the number of positive results steadily increases), but instead it will misleadingly keep going down (as the number of tests will keep rising and many people will keep getting negative results again and again, even if there are eventually so many positive results that the university community is obviously in crisis). 

Using the number of people tested in the last week, according to the data provided, I calculate that the positive rate for people tested since July 27 is 0.61% (rather than the 0.07% presently displayed). That would mean that 1 in every 162 people in the BU community has tested positive since July 27. No doubt 0.61% is a little too high because some people got tested in previous weeks but didn’t get tested during the last week. Suppose the correct percentage is 0.4%. That would still mean the 0.07% presently displayed is out by a factor of 5.7!

Finally, another professor at the BU School of Public Health (not one of the five authors of the article mentioned above) continues to point out important facts about test results at BU, and their ramifactions:

Students are Staying Away from University Classrooms

Our university leaders, I have now heard, are very worried about the fact that most students are staying away from university classrooms and opting to attend classes remotely (as predicted). BU Today has not reported on the fact that students enrolled in hybrid classes are opting to attend their classes remotely, but The Daily Free Press has recently published at least two relevant articles, here and here.

It is not exactly clear why our university leaders are worried about students choosing to stay away from physical classrooms – after all, this presumably helps BU keep COVID-19 infection numbers down (although the administration hasn’t publicly said as much), and the whole raison d’être of Learn from Anywhere was meant to be that it provides students with freedom (which they may legitimately exercise by choosing to stay away from classrooms). Perhaps BU’s leaders are worried that dissatisfied students may accuse them of false advertising. It has been suggested to me that they may be concerned about the possibility of the university being the target of further legal suits. But I must confess that I am uncertain as to why they are worried.

I have also heard that our university leaders were recently informed by a group of professors that instructors are finding that they can either cater to the students who are in the physical classroom, or cater to the students at home, but that it is extremely difficult to do both of these things properly at the same time (as was predicted by pedagogical experts, e.g. by Jason Prentice and his colleagues in the Writing Program). Nonetheless, planning for Learn from Anywhere to be the default mode for the delivery of classes in the Spring is continuing apace.

The Future of Learn from Anywhere, and the Dashboard

It was made explicit in a meeting of department chairs this week that when it comes to planning for the Spring semester, BU is presently assuming that instructors who have not successfully applied for workplace adjustments that permit them to teach remotely will continue to follow the LfA hybrid model and teach on campus. This is not surprising news, but one hopes that reliable survey data will be systematically gathered from professors and other instructors, as well as students, regarding the success or otherwise of LfA classes, before any final decision to continue with LfA is made. My sense is that LfA has, in general, been something of a disaster, both for instructors and for students. However, I fully admit that the evidence for this that is new this semester (let’s not forget we had relevant evidence from pedagogical experts before the semester began) has so far been anecdotal in nature (see here, here, and here, for instance). Amongst other things, we need to know:
What percentage of classes are operating in the hybrid mode (this percentage may drop further as semester progresses, as courses move online, if that’s what students want)?
– In the classes that are operating in the hybrid mode, what percentage of students are attending in person?
– What percentage of instructors that are teaching their classes in the hybrid mode think they could provide a better learning environment for students if they were to instead teach remotely next semester (something that most are not presently permitted to do)?

Of course, even if a university administered survey is provided at some point, we know from experience that the survey may not be taken seriously by BU’s leaders. In any case, cognizant of the fact that the university has not yet systematically surveyed the BU community, the BU PhD Student Coalition has decided to take the lead by setting up a survey, and I particularly recommend that students and instructors who have direct experiences with LfA complete this survey.

The second BU Weekly COVID-19 Report has been published online. It contains responses to some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the Dashboard. It includes the following news: “Now that the University-wide coronavirus surveillance plan has been in place for more than six weeks, and students, faculty, and staff have settled into on-campus or remote learning, BU plans to share the number of people in its testing population … ‘we’re going to put that number in the dashboard.’” This is a response to a concern that I and others raised in August. We are told that the number of people that have been tested will be posted somewhere on the Dashboard, but we are not told that we will see the data regarding percentages of people that have tested positive recast so that number of people tested is used as a denominator, rather than the highly misleading number of tests (it’s telling that the word “denominator” is not used anywhere in the report, and percentages are not mentioned in this context). We are also not told why it was thought necessary to wait more than six weeks to start reporting the number of people tested. The idea of waiting for people to be fully settled is mentioned as if it is a reason for waiting to report on the number of people tested, but it doesn’t seem like a good reason at all to postpone moving to a much less misleading denominator.

Is the Dashboard being provided for public relations reasons, or for public health reasons? It seems that public relations concerns have to a certain extent been driving the way the data is being presented on the Dashboard, rather than what should be happening, which is that public relations concerns take a back seat to public health concerns.

Regarding the fact that invalid test numbers were previously being provided on the Dashboard, but suddenly stopped being provided, no attempt is made to address the issue, raised in my last post, that moving to a process that significantly reduces the time it takes to receive the results of tests may have also led to a significant increase in the percentage of tests that are invalid. Instead of addressing this concern, the report simply says “The daily and cumulative numbers of invalid tests were removed from the dashboard… because an invalid result requires that person come back for repeat testing within 24 hours.” This information about retesting being required within 24 hours is helpful for us all to receive, and at least this change to the Dashboard was addressed in the report. Still, being provided with more information, of a kind that was already being reported, seems better than being provided with less information.

Show us the Information

It’s been a couple of weeks since I and others started pointing out that there are serious problems with BU’s Dashboard that are due to the fact that the denominator being used for BU data throughout is number of tests (a number that keeps going up and up, as students are tested twice a week, and in-person instructors are tested once a week), rather than number of people tested (a much lower number that will have more or less hit a ceiling a week ago). Since then the Dashboard design has been changed, with some information being added, and some being removed. We were told in August that the data for number of people tested would be available on September 6, but no attempt has been to even add percentages that use number of people tested, let alone to move away from an emphasis on data that relies on number of tests as a denominator. This means BU is continuing to leave itself open to the charge of aiming to mislead people when it comes to comparing positive test percentages across BU and the wider community.

Employee data has now been added, and this is a good thing, but there has been no attempt to address the serious problem just mentioned, and the new Dashboard has even been made worse in one way. Prior to the recent changes to the Dashboard, data was being reported on the number and percentage of tests that are invalid. Now this data is not being reported at all. Why remove these updates? We have not been provided with any justification for doing so. We have, however, been told that the testing process has changed, with a new type of swab kit being used, in order to speed up the process of returning results to people after they are tested. Last week we were seeing average sample processing times in the high 30s (e.g. an average of 39.5 hours for results received on September 3, and an average of 38.9 hours for results received on September 6). This was not the promised 24 hours average waiting time. The numbers have now come down (e.g. 25.6 hours for September 10). These facts might lead one to ask: given that the reporting of invalid test numbers on the Dashboard was stopped at the time that the testing process changed in order to speed up that process, was the decision to stop reporting invalid test numbers made because of an expectation that we would see invalid test numbers rise significantly as a result of these changes?

Let me be clear: I am not saying that if the percentage of invalid tests has now increased that this invalidates the move to using tests that can be processed more quickly. Increasing turn around times is clearly important for efforts to keep the infection rate down. The tradeoff here may well be worth it. What I am saying is that there is no good reason to hide information about invalid tests. BU should continue to provide that information at the same time as explaining to us why the tradeoff in question is worth making, if there has been a tradeoff (and if the hypothesis suggested by the above question is false, BU should go back to publishing invalid test numbers, anyway, in order to build trust, which public health experts tell us is a very valuable resource in a pandemic).

As far as I am aware, we haven’t at BU received a single general communication providing details concerning false positive and false negative rates, and invalid tests. We remain completely in the dark on these issues. Again, let me emphasize that I’m not saying that if these rates were properly discussed we would see that something terrible has been going on; on the contrary, I think trust in the testing program would increase. The basic problem is one of disrespect. Students and faculty deserve to be treated as intelligent adults, and kept fully informed. It is odd that this even needs to be said when talking about a university, but, sadly, there is so much PR spin to be found in higher education these days that I guess it does need to be said.

Credit where credit is due. BU has now started issuing weekly COVID-19 bulletins. This is in line with a recommendation that I made a few weeks ago, after referring to the public health literature on the importance of possessing a good information policy in a pandemic with the invaluable assistance of Professor Michael Siegel. The first of these bulletins contains too little useful information, but hopefully we’ll learn much more as time goes by. I’m happy to see that people are asking questions and pressing for much needed improvements in the comments on the bulletin. We have also now been provided with data regarding student non-compliance.

Higher ed reporter Kirk Carapezza has produced an excellent WGBH Radio piece on BU’s mistaken decision to not inform in-person instructors when students in their classes test positive. It includes interviews with Northeastern Distinguished University Professor of Law, Wendy Parmet (Parmet is a public health law expert, and she asserts that there is no good legal justification for this policy choice), Professor Michael Siegel, and myself. I also recommend keeping up with Michael Siegel’s new blog. Recent posts include “The LfA Marketing Scheme Revisited: Two Weeks In, It is Clear that this was a Hoax to Lure in Tuition Dollars” and “New Data from Boston Public Schools Demonstrates How BUSPH Learn from Anywhere Approach is a Racist Policy,” as well as a guest post by John Sherman, an attorney and senior program fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

UPDATE, September 15: As discussed previously here (near the bottom of the page), in August, BU Information Services and Technology provided student LfA moderators with a sexist and culturally insensitive dress code. The relevant set of instructions was fairly quickly withdrawn, and I have now been informed that Professor Kecia Ali (Religion) and Professor Cati Connell (Director, Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies) have worked together with Tracy Schroeder, Vice President of Information Services and Technology to produce a revised IS&T Code of Conduct that is no longer problematic in the relevant respects. To Tracy Schroeder and IS&T’s further credit, these recent changes, the rationale for them, and the process by which they were made have also been been openly discussed in an email provided to student moderators (and elsewhere, no doubt).

Michael Siegel of the BU School of Public Health

This guest post is by Professor Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health. The text was also provided in an open letter to the Dean of SPH.

This is perhaps the most difficult note I have written in my career. It comes out of a deep love for the School of Public Health, a love that has been engendered by 25 years (as of six days ago) of being a part of an institution with a singular mission to use scientific principles and methods to think about public health problems, to teach our students principles to go out and improve the world, and to demonstrate our commitment to public health and social justice by doing – that is, implementing these principles in our own actions and policies as a school.

It is based on a careful analysis of these principles that I have reached the conclusion that led me to convey this message:

It is essential that we rescind the decision to hold in-person/hybrid classes and transition immediately to online-only classes, not merely to protect the health of the community and the public, but to restore our ability to carry out our mission as a school of public health. 

Our decision to hold in-person/hybrid classes was made in late April, long before any reasonable public health institution would commit to such a policy, given that the pandemic was raging at the time and we had no idea of the status of COVID-19 infection in the fall. From the start, we were violating the principles of public health that we teach our students: make decisions based on the facts and only after a careful weighing of potential costs and benefits. The decision was made for financial reasons only.

It is critical to acknowledge that the Learn from Anywhere (LfA) theme was merely a post-hoc justification for a decision that had already been made for financial reasons. The idea was to propagandize the illusion that BU’s primary concern was fashioning an educational system marked by choice: each student could choose the educational mode that serves them best.

However, the reality is that LfA is about anything other than choice. It is about providing separate and unequal education to two groups of students, those who are most advantaged and those who are disadvantaged, under the guise of providing improved pedagogy. But the reality is—and I think I have the expertise to state this based on being a student of didactics and someone who has been recognized for my teaching over the past 25 years—that in the current environment, the hybrid model is far inferior to simply holding online-only classes.

The hybrid approach places the community at serious risk of health harm and offers no pedagogical advantages. I have made some difficult public health decisions over the course of my career, but this one seems simple: option A has no pedagogical advantages and potentially serious public health harms; option B has pedagogical advantages compared to option A and avoids those public health harms. 

This is why our colleagues at both other institutions of public health in Boston decided early on to provide online-only education. Both of those school’s wrote letters to their students explaining that the health of the community must come above other concerns.

Harvard wrote: “What is clear is that the safety of the Harvard Chan School community is paramount, that we cannot ensure a safe return to in-person instruction in a way that would facilitate learning, and that, when the right time comes, we will bring our students and instructors together back on campus in carefully planned phases. Our students—U.S. and international—must be able to continue their education without fear for their health, and many have expressed wanting to avoid unsafe travel and the need to care for family members. Our actions cannot worsen the public health crisis.”

Tufts wrote“The School of Medicine has determined that all MPH coursework offered in fall 2020 will be delivered remotely. This decision was made after extensive research and consideration of many different options. As a program which requires no on-campus clinical training, the MPH program has the ability to take advantage of remote delivery without compromising course quality. By moving to remote instruction, we hope to provide you with the flexibility to decide when and how to relocate to Boston without compromising your health or your budgets. Since we are located in the heart of an urban center, this decision also allows for more effective social distancing and will contribute to city-wide efforts to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 and to protecting the health of the Tufts community.”

To be clear, at BU, it was financial concerns that over-rode public health considerations. Our letter was not: “We are going to protect the health of our community.” Instead, it was: “Look – we’re still offering in-person classes next fall. So there’s no need for you to take a year off or to enroll at a different school.”

Along the way to that decision, a number of basic public health principles were violated:

1. In public health, we don’t provide protection only to the least vulnerable.

One of the principles of public health practice is that when we develop policies to protect the population (whether it be a state, city, school, etc.) from recognized health hazards, we do not just protect the people who are least vulnerable to the hazard. We protect the entire population, including and especially those who are most vulnerable to the hazard.

Unfortunately, this is precisely the opposite of what BUSPH is doing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The School is basically saying: “We are going to protect only the members of our community who are not especially vulnerable to this infection. They will be able to attend classes in person. But the members of the community who are especially vulnerable to this infection can choose to attend classes online.” This is, in fact, precisely what we are doing. Let each person decide based on how vulnerable they are.

Make no mistake about it. LfA is not about giving students the choice to pick the educational mode that serves them best. At its root, it is about separating out students who are more vulnerable to respiratory disease and more anxious about it and those who are less vulnerable and less anxious.

This is not public health! In public health, we either offer a safe working and learning environment for our community, or we don’t. And if we can’t offer it, then we don’t offer it to some and not to others. In particular, we do not offer a safe working environment to the less vulnerable and force the vulnerable out of the workplace/classroom. 

2. In public health, we don’t provide separate and unequal services for different groups, especially in a way that is disproportionately associated with race. We don’t implement racist policies.

It’s unfortunate for us not to appreciate that many students have medical conditions, are taking care of vulnerable family members, or can’t afford to avoid public transportation options that would put them at risk. These students don’t really have a choice to learn from “anywhere.” So instead, we are providing them with separate and unequal services, depriving them of the opportunity to interact in person with their professors, for example. 

How is this different from deciding that because of severe financial problems, we will not be able to fix the elevator in Talbot, so we are implemented a Learn from Anywhere approach for Talbot classes? Students can choose the option that best meets their educational needs. If you are advantaged enough to be able to walk up the stairs, then you are welcome to join us in person. If you are disabled, then don’t worry – there is still the online option for you.

This policy is inherently discriminatory. And because we know that students of color are more likely to have all three of the above concerns (medical conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, and sickle cell anemia), vulnerable family members they need to take care of, and fewer financial resources), this now becomes a racist policy.

Implementing a Learn from Anywhere system of education this fall will disproportionately endanger the lives of Black and Brown people in our community — both the BU community and the larger South End community. As a school of public health, we should be doing everything we can to minimize the burden of COVID-19 in the South End and Roxbury communities with which we share our neighborhood. In the last two weeks, there were 691 cases in Boston, an increase from the prior two-week period. However, instead of doing our part by not bringing hundreds of students onto campus, we insisted on doing so, based on a decision that we forced upon ourselves way back in April.

Instead of speaking out throughout the summer to urge other colleges and universities to hold online classes instead of returning hundreds of thousands of college students back to campus, we remained silent because our hands were tied: we had already committed to bringing our own students back. 

In doing so, we required maintenance staff – also disproportionately employees of color – to put themselves in harm’s way by doing the meticulous, time-consuming, and exhausting cleaning work to make it possible for our students to attend classes in person. 

And finally, we implemented a racially discriminatory hiring policy for teaching assistants by which in order to be hired, you needed to be able to go into the classroom all semester, something that is not possible for those who are more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 (i.e., BIPOC). 

We can do all the self-reflection and self-learning that we want, but if we remain silent while the School implements a racist policy that threatens the health of neighborhoods made up predominantly of people of color, what good is that self-reflection doing? If the School mandates diversity and inclusion training on the one hand, but on the other hand, implements a racist policy that disproportionately disadvantages people of color, what good is that training doing?

“So basically what the school is saying through this policy – not intentionally obviously – but what we’re saying is that having racial justice in our classroom is not worth paying $250,000 for, that’s what they’re saying, they’re putting a price tag on racial justice so it makes us hypocritical right because on the one hand we’re going out there and saying, “Hey, this is a school that prides itself on social justice. This is what we do. This is our theme. This is what makes us special. This is what makes us different from other schools.” Except if it costs us more than $250,000. Then forget about that, we forget the racial justice, never mind. Right. That’s essentially what we’re saying.” (excerpt from my talk to the Academic Public Health Volunteer Corps)

3. We don’t put financial interests above health

Given the decision that the School of Public Health made back in April to hold in-person classes using a hybrid format, the safety and health of the full community is clearly not the priority. Nor is the priority to provide a safe and healthy work environment for all BU faculty, staff, and students.

Were that the case, the School would have either: (1) waited until later in the summer when it had a clearer idea what the situation would be in the fall to make any decision; or (2) followed the lead of both Tufts and Harvard’s MPH programs which announced in June that they would be online-only in order to most effectively protect the health of their entire communities.

I would respect the decision a lot more if we were simply honest with ourselves and admitted that it was made for financial reasons. But deceiving ourselves into thinking that this was first and foremost a public health decision is a disservice to our entire community. And it teaches just the wrong lesson to our incoming students.

The reality is that we made a decision to place our finances above the health of the community. In doing so, it undermined the basis for our credibility in encouraging others to take actions that promote public health. In almost every public health issue, it comes down to a trade-off between financial concerns and health concerns. How can we as a School or members of this School community now go out into the field and tell other institutions that they have to place health above financial concerns when we ourselves have done the opposite?

The bottom line is that the decision to hold in-person classes this fall not only undermines public health principles, but it also takes us far from our mission as a School and makes it impossible to have credibility when trying to carry out this mission.

4. We don’t make decisions without knowing the facts

Public health decisions should be evidence-based. That is, they should be based on the best available scientific evidence. It also seems to me that public health experts agree that decisions regarding the opening of facilities during the pandemic should not be made based on the idea of setting a fixed schedule in advance, but should instead be real-time decisions that are made separately for each phase of opening at the appropriate time and based on actual parameters of the spread of disease, rate of change in new cases, trends in percentage of positive test results, hospital and ICU capacity, and so on. 

However, the School of Public Health made a decision last April to commit to having in-person classes this fall. I view this to be an irresponsible decision because we did not have the necessary evidence available to be able to make such a decision. At the time the decision was made, we had no idea how widespread the pandemic would be in September and no idea what any of the actual parameters would be. Without that information, how could we commit ourselves to holding in-person classes?

As soon as the marketing for the School of Public Health’s new Learn from Anywhere (LfA) system came out, it was already apparent to me that this was simply a post-hoc justification for a decision that had already been made.

The decision to offer hybrid classes, made before even considering the implications and ramifications (including the cost and use of resources) of implementing in-person classes this fall, was clearly made first, with the LfA propaganda coming second in an attempt to justify what was obviously a premature and irresponsible public health decision.

5. We don’t sacrifice our public health mission.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the primary mission of the School of Public Health (SPH) should be to try to minimize the morbidity and mortality from this disease. However, the decision to hold hybrid (“learn from anywhere”) classes this fall does exactly the opposite. 

Of the choices available to the School (which were only two: hybrid or online-only), this choice maximizes the potential exposure of the SPH community. But it goes far beyond that. It also maximizes the potential exposure of everyone we come in close contact with, including our families, friends, and the general public. Given the tremendous toll that COVID-19 has already taken (more than 180,000 deaths in less than six months) and the extremely high level of risk that there will be a second surge of cases this fall, it is unconscionable that we would choose the option that maximizes the potential impact on morbidity and mortality in both the SPH and the overall community.

It is for this reason that I believe this decision forsakes the School’s primary mission, which is to save lives. Right now, the single most important thing we can do as a School to save lives is to minimize exposure to the virus to the greatest extent possible. With respect to exposure in the classroom, the only option that is consistent with the School’s mission would have been to move to online-only classes for the fall semester. 

Sacrificing your mission is substantial, so to what did we make this sacrifice? 

The answer is quite simple: money.

The only benefit of announcing back in the late spring that we were going to have hybrid classes this fall was a financial one. There was a concern that if admitted students believed that we were going to have online classes, many of them would have deferred their admission or chosen to attend a different school. It was the potential loss of these tuition dollars that the School’s mission was weighed against. And the decision came down clearly on the side of our financial interests, rather than on the side of being true to our mission and protecting the public’s health.

There is a second way in which the decision essentially forced us to abandon our mission. Because we had committed to opening our classrooms in September, we could not be a credible voice warning about schools opening up too soon in the fall. How could we be taken seriously if we emphasized the importance of delaying the decision to reopen schools until certain parameters were met when we had already committed to opening our own classrooms?

Where is the School of Public Health in countering the president’s message that schools must open, unconditionally, in the fall? We were nowhere to be seen because our own premature decision to open our classrooms forced us to abdicate our public health mission.

6. We don’t force people to put their health at risk.

A core principle of public health is that we create conditions under which people have the agency to make their own informed and voluntary decisions about what substantial health risks to take. While we certainly provided that option to students, we did not provide it to faculty members and certain staff, including maintenance workers and teaching assistants. Teaching assistants who indicated that they did not want to take the risk of exposing themselves to a potentially serious or even deadly infection were told that they were not eligible for the position.

7. We don’t make the absence of health conditions a prerequisite for employment.

This stems from #6 above. Teaching assistants who indicated that they did not want to take the risk of exposing themselves to a potentially serious or even deadly infection were told that they were not eligible for the position. Essentially, this means that teaching assistants with medical conditions that put them at high risk of COVID complications were systematically excluded from employment as TA’s this semester.

Conclusion

Fortunately, there is an easy way to correct all of the above. There is still time to announce a transition to virtual classes at SPH.

(For more detailed commentaries on many of the above issues, please feel free to go to my blog, entitled “Sacrificing Our Principles: Public Health and Social Justice Give Way to Money and Marketing.”)

BU’s Dashboard is Misleading, and this Matters

The following text recently appeared in a public relations piece published by Boston University:

[President] Brown says the dashboard will help answer the important question: in terms of infection rate, ‘is BU better off or worse off than the community at large? That’s the transparency we need to know, and the community around us needs to know.’”

If the university intends that the COVID-19 Dashboard be used in this way then why is that dashboard presently showing statistics in a misleading fashion? Is this the result of an intention to deceive the public when it comes to an extremely serious public health issue, rather than provide genuine transparency, or is it simply the result of incompetence? Have BU’s own scientists and public health experts tried telling BU’s leaders that they are displaying misleading statistics on the Dashboard, or are they content for this affront to honest public health efforts to continue?

There are many things that can be criticized about the BU Dashboard. The bar graph at the top is not well-designed. Results are only being reported for students at the moment, and employees have been left out for now (employee data will apparently be provided later). These things are not what I am most worried about. The most pressing problem is that the data is not really comparative, despite the misleading heading, “Comparative Statistics: Averages.”


Students are being tested twice a week. People in the general community are rarely tested more than once. This means that the BU percentages should not be based on number of positive tests / number of tests, but should instead be based on number of positive tests / number of people tested. The wrong denominator is being used, hence any comparisons with the general population made on the basis of this dashboard will be misleading.

The fact is that the choice of denominator makes the statistics on display here misleading to a general audience. This use of statistics becomes even more problematic when one thinks about this part of the page, which is displayed near the top of the dashboard:


The “Cumulative from July 27, 2020” chart is problematic partly because it includes the university’s test run using locally based asymptomatic subjects that occurred before the undergraduate students started coming back. More importantly, many people have been tested multiple times now. The percentage of positive tests in this chart becomes more and more deceptive as time goes by, because the denominator will go up by two for each student who is being retested every week. No wonder the positive test percentage is so small! And it will keep getting smaller as time goes by. On the other hand, if the denominator used here were number of people tested, the positive test percentage would go up over time, at least after the number of people tested reaches the number that are going to be here all term (assuming that COVID-19 isn’t completely stopped in its tracks). This would not prevent BU from arguing its testing program is working well (if it is working well), because if the rate at which the positive test percentages increase over time is kept very low, that is something that can be held up for everyone to pay attention to.

There are also problems when it comes to making statistical comparisons with the general population that will continue even if the right denominator (number of people tested) starts to be used, as it should be. In particular, there is the selection bias that comes from the fact that people in the general population usually only get tested if they appear to have COVID-19 symptoms. This means that, when tested, people in the general population are already much more likely to have COVID-19 than people at BU who are mostly being tested when they are asymptomatic.

It might be that an improved, less misleading Dashboard would still suggest that BU is doing very well because of its testing program. Suppose BU doesn’t satisfactorily fix its Dashboard, but everything works out well this semester anyway, when it comes to the actual rate of infection. Might not BU’s leaders then be able to justifiably declare, “SEE, you didn’t need to worry about the Dashboard!” No. We are a university. University research should not be corrupted by misleading PR. Even if things work out well when it comes to the present public health crisis, BU will still be highly criticizable for not fixing this Dashboard, if it doesn’t do so.

A Misleading and Negligent Policy Statement

UPDATE, August 27: An email campaign has been started to object to BU’s policy choice to refuse to notify faculty and other instructors if a student in their class tests positive. Email messages to President Brown, Provost Morrison, and the Board of Trustees are easy to send using the provided form.


Boston University yesterday issued what is arguably a misleading and negligent policy statement concerning contact tracing, and BU Today this morning followed up with a public relations article that provides a few more details regarding the policy decision.

The statement is misleading because at least one of the main reasons for the decision to not inform in-person instructors when a student in their class tests positive is not mentioned. That reason is simple: the university is concerned that there will be too many cases where instructors respond to such news by (justifiably) taking their classes online and entering quarantine for two weeks. Here is an epidemiologist at BU making this point, in response to my own reaction (this is a different BU public health expert from the one who anonymously contributed to my last post):

Learn from Anywhere is a decaying structure that was never an attractive option to faculty, since we’ve known for months that it is pedagogically inferior to teaching online during a pandemic (for most courses, at least, and when it involves teaching mask to mask). It is appropriate to describe it as decaying because many of us have now been granted the right to teach our classes online. At this point, I suspect the university is worried LfA may completely fall apart if they were to provide information to instructors that would lead them to do the morally right thing when a student in their class tests positive, and take their classes online for a period.

This policy choice is also negligent, because it attempts to prevent instructors from taking a course of action that is now widely recognized to be morally required by appropriately evolving public health standards. A number of US states require certain businesses (such as restaurants) to keep the contact details of customers who visit, in order to aid in later contact tracing efforts. Such measures actually predate recognition of the growing body of evidence we now possess that spending time with others indoors for extended periods of time is a significant risk when it comes to the transmission of Covid-19, and that the six-foot spacing rule is both insufficient and can provide a false sense of security indoors. The university claims in this statement to be following “best practices,” but it is doing no such thing (what it really means to be saying is that it is making the same policy choice as some other universities that are making similarly bad choices). Our leaders pride themselves on promoting excellent science when it suits them (as with our testing program), but not when it is inconvenient to do so.

What about privacy law? This is a red herring. None of us wish to know which particular students have tested positive. And I’m hearing from legal experts that there would be no violation of privacy law if instructors are contacted with a general claim about numbers when students in their in-person classes test positive (an example; and another [second example added on August 26]). We can be sure that the university consulted lawyers, and that if the advice they received had been that it is very clear that the much better contact tracing policy option being rejected would involve a privacy violation according to the law, the university most certainly would have said that in their statement. Why would they hold that back? Instead, we get one short and purposely vague reference to reviewing the law.

The university’s argument concerning the need to protect privacy fails to take account of the fact that classes are being offered in a hybrid format that already allows for, and in some cases requires (when ‘platoons’ are used), a number of students to be attending classes online. This fact, as well as the more mundane fact that students can miss classes for any number of reasons, and can provide whatever excuses they like for missing classes (even before the pandemic, we were directed not to ask for proof of reported reasons for needing to miss class), ensure that no particular individuals would be identified in the morally required contact tracing approach that is being rejected.

The BU Today article reports: ‘College of Arts & Sciences faculty “advocated strongly for notification,” [Prof. O’Keefe] says, while instructors at other schools have told her they’re less concerned.’ It may well be that pushback on Faculty Council has been coming more from CAS faculty than others (perhaps because many faculty in other colleges do not have tenure). That shouldn’t be taken as revealing the true views of faculty at large. Here is a constructive proposal: provide a single question, anonymous survey to all instructors who will be teaching their classes in person. Simply ask everyone, “Do you think you should be notified by the university whenever someone tests positive in your class, with no student names ever being provided?” If such a survey were to be provided, I predict that an overwhelmingly high percentage of instructors would respond that they do think they should be notified in this way in such circumstances. That’s what I’m hearing from many people in other colleges today.


UPDATE, August 26: There are other important implications of BU’s negligent policy choice that I could have mentioned in my post, and it has been helpful to read people drawing out some of these implications in the comments section that follows the BU Today article, and elsewhere. Here are a couple of implications particularly worth mentioning. Although undergraduate students are required to be tested twice a week, instructors will only be tested once a week. This means that if an instructor is infected on a Monday after being tested (say), they may not know until the Tuesday of the following week (eight days later; I am including an extra day because it takes a day to find out the results of a test) that they have been infected. During that period there will have been many opportunities for them to spread the virus to their family members and other people they have come into contact with. A second, related implication is that since most instructors teach two classes, undergraduate students who an instructor goes on to teach in their other class, or meets with during office hours, may well become infected as well. This is an implication not lost on a worried undergraduate student who left a comment after the BU Today article indicating that BU students have not been informed by email that this reckless policy is in place.

BU Today Reprints IHE Opinion Piece

BU Today has reprinted my opinion piece, “False Advertising and the In-Person Experience.” Thank you, BU Today! Comments are presently open on the BU Today website, and I encourage readers to use this opportunity to express their views regarding BU’s plans, or my piece. The original version, which is very similar (there were no particularly substantial changes made or suggested by BU Today), was published by Inside Higher Ed.

The Students are and will be Disappointed

I have just had an op-ed I wrote published in Inside Higher Education, “False Advertising and the In-Person Experience” (original title: “The Students will be Disappointed”). Here is a central passage:

Let us assume, since administrators are saying this, that most students presently want the option to be able to take classes in person. The crucial question is: Why should we think such preferences will not shift substantially once students experience socially distanced, mask-to-mask classes — or stay at home watching a bad video feed of an instructor whose attention is divided, speaking through a mask? Bear in mind that it will soon become apparent to students that if everyone opts to stay away from the classroom, instructors will be able to remove their masks, and the online alternative will then be more straightforward and relaxed. Indeed, instructors can and probably should begin the semester by pointing this out to students.

On August 5, Boston University junior Sophia Poteet sent an extremely well-composed letter to a number of BU administrators, including the President and the Provost, responding to the internal email that had been sent to faculty at BU in an effort to have faculty craft their communications with students in a way that suits the university’s public relations goals. One week later, Sophia has yet to receive a reply to her letter.* When it started to become apparent to her that she would probably never receive a reply, she contacted the Daily Free Press, who agreed to publish her letter. They published “A Letter to Dean Bizup” yesterday. Here are a few select quotations from the letter:

I was shocked by the condescension, blatant prioritization of money over student experience and utter lack of respect for both students and faculty displayed within the memo. I understand the desire to maintain a calm environment, allay fears and create a cohesive message. However, the language… goes beyond any of those aims. It displays an intense disrespect for the intelligence of both BU’s students and faculty, and clearly prioritizes publicity and public opinion over the actual learning experience of students. … The attempt to censor faculty and their communication with students is not only misguided and deceptive, but is also actively harmful to BU students and their ability to thrive in their education this semester. … If [last semester] my professors had solely focused on the “positive aspects of their courses and teaching methods,” as you advised in your memo, I do not know if I would have made it through the semester. … When you wrote “it is better to be vague than to emphasize uncertainties to be resolved,” you demonstrated that you have little understanding of students’ decision-making processes… In every letter BU has released so far during the pandemic, it was not the acknowledgments of uncertainty but rather the vague statements that were ripped to shreds in student discussions, mocked on social media… Personally, this memo has dramatically reduced my level of trust in the BU administration and the information it puts out. … [It] seems to make clear that you would like to prevent students from becoming fully aware of the level to which professors objected, perhaps so that students do not realize that the LfA model was crafted out of financial concerns rather than the desire to create the best educational experience possible. … I know that many other BU students feel similarly… I hope that in future communications, you and the rest of the University will display a deeper level of thoughtfulness and respect toward both faculty and students.

Yesterday, Faculty Council met, and President Brown and a team involved in campus reopening plans were present to answer questions. Contacts on Faculty Council have told me about a number of the questions and responses. Let me briefly mention just one important issue among many that were discussed. When pressed on the contact tracing procedures that will be put in place in the coming weeks, the President and his team declared that classroom instructors would not be informed when a student in one of their classes tests positive for Covid-19. The justification that was presented for this decision was that instructors and other students in a classroom will not normally count as “close” contacts, since people will be observing the six feet social distancing rule in class, and only “close” contacts matter for contact tracing purposes. What this reasoning completely ignores is everything we now know about the transmission of Covid-19 indoors. So much for the much touted idea that BU’s reopening plans are relying on cutting edge science. Here is a relevant quotation from an article in yesterday’s New York Times:

‘We know that indoors, those distance rules don’t matter anymore,’ Dr. Schofield said. It takes about five minutes for small aerosols to traverse the room even in still air, she added. The six-foot minimum is ‘misleading, because people think they are protected indoors and they’re really not,’ she said.

In conclusion: #fckitwontcutit, BU!

*Sophia’s experience reminds me of the fact that Russell Powell and I have never received a reply (not even acknowledging receipt) to our open letter to the President and Provost of June 2, or a later letter, sent on June 15, providing the petition that now has more than 1500 signatures.

UPDATE 1: On August 13, The Daily Free Press published a response from Dean Bizup.
UPDATE 2: On August 14, The Daily Free Press published “Will faculty be told if a student tests positive for COVID-19? BU says it’s still not sure.

A Suggestion for Keeping Classes Safe, and Other Issues

I have spent a good deal of time in the last few days trying to figure out how to help my department (and anyone else that asks) buy masks that are safe enough for indoor use during this pandemic. It turns out that it is very difficult to ensure that one is buying KN95 or N95 masks that are not fake. This is why Professor Nathan Phillips thinks the university should be purchasing KN95 masks in bulk for all non-remote teachers at the university, with expert assistance. I would add that I think the university actually has a moral obligation to do this, given that they are imposing significant risks on their own employees by making them teach in classrooms, when, in most cases at least, there is a pedagogically preferable method available (remote teaching). In not providing crucial PPE, the university is diverging from the behavior of employers in other professions and industries.

Professor Phillips has also suggested to me that there is another thing that BU could do to help make classroom teaching safer, and I think that teachers and students should be insisting that they do it. Given the now well-known problems with ventilation in many classrooms in the university, the university should be providing to teachers machines that test for the extent of CO2 build up (wherever CO2 builds up, we can conclude that the airflow situation is dangerous). These devices are apparently not difficult to learn to use, and can be bought for about $200 each. Teachers might bring one to class, run a test, and then tell everyone to leave the class if the CO2 level is too high. Teaching for that class might then transition to being online until the airflow in the room can be improved, or an alternative classroom is located. The university is telling everybody not to worry about the ventilation issue, because the HVAC systems are being improved (even though it admits that a great many university buildings do not have HVAC systems). It should put its money where its mouth is, and provide enough of these devices to our university teachers to enable them to check their classrooms from time to time. Since I think it’s a safe bet that the university administration won’t do this, I recommend that individual departments now buy these devices and have their teachers ready to regularly check the CO2 levels in their classrooms when term starts. [UPDATE added on August 10: A number of experts from elsewhere are also now offering similar advice on Twitter. One expert recommends this $160 device in a useful article.]

Now for a couple of other items of interest. First, here is a question: will the university be telling us what percentage of students have elected to return to campus, based on the student payments that have now arrived? Harvard and MIT have provided this information to the public, but BU has not done so as yet.

I have been meaning for a while now to provide an update concerning the BU graduate student housing problem that I previously reported on, concerning the policy that graduate students are to be housed alongside undergraduate students who may have contracted Covid-19. On July 29, the Provost’s Office sent an official communication to BU Real Estate graduate student tenants clarifying the situation. It indicates that no undergraduate students who have tested positive will be housed in graduate student apartment buildings, but it also says that students who have been identified by contact tracing methods as being at risk and have initially tested negative will be housed in quarantine in private rooms in the graduate student buildings, because private rooms are not available elsewhere. The communication further states that graduate students who who wish to be released from the relevant real estate contracts will not be financially penalized. It is left unclear why BU feels it needs to jeopardize the health of graduate students, rather than, say, use hotel accommodation to temporarily house students, as Northeastern, for instance, is planning to do.

An Email with Instructions to Faculty

Yesterday (August 3), two undergraduate student journalists independently reported on an email that was sent to CAS faculty on July 29. Grace Ferguson broke the story with an excellent example of journalistic work on WTBU, the student-run university radio station, and Katarzyna Jezak of the Daily Free Press, an independent student newspaper, further reported on it in a great article titled “CAS professors asked to self-censor in communication with students.”

For the record: I didn’t leak this letter, and I have a policy of not posting internal BU documents on my website without permission of their authors. But I am not a journalist. I think it is completely appropriate for journalists to report on university politics, and faculty should feel free to be interviewed by journalists. Fortunately, Provost Jean Morrison is also a defender of free speech rights: ‘Free and unfettered speech is at the core of our mission as a university, and it must be central to who we are as a campus community. This means allowing all voices to be heard and for robust and critical debate of the ideas expressed.’

A link to Grace Ferguson’s radio report and transcript was retweeted widely on Twitter, e.g. by a Boston Globe reporter, and by Carl T. Bergstrom, popular biology professor and author of “Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World.”

UPDATE: An undergraduate student has written a letter to the author of this email to CAS faculty, and the author has responded to the student. See also this post.

BU Today, BU Letters, and an AAUP Statement

I have received an email response to my open letter to the editor from the editor of BU Today, John O’Rourke. He does not deny that there haven’t been any articles by BU faculty or links to pieces by faculty that are about faculty opposition to the BU administration’s plans for the Fall. Nor does he deny any of the facts regarding BU Today’s decision to cancel their plans to run a piece presenting faculty opinions that I laid out in my letter, or the account of how Russell Powell and I were treated by the BU Today team. He does not offer to publish my letter to the editor, and I do not expect it to be published. He asks if I saw the op-ed by Emily Chua, a BU PhD student. I was not only aware of this op-ed, but I linked to it previously here. In any case, the publication of this piece is irrelevant to my point that no critical pieces by faculty have been published (nor, for that matter, have journalistic investigations concerning faculty unrest of the kind published in the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the New York Times, or elsewhere been published in BU Today). Although O’Rourke forthrightly denies that there is any policy of this kind in place, I continue to believe it’s important to appreciate that BU Today has allowed at least a little space for pieces on critical student views, while at the same time providing no space at all for critical faculty views. An earlier BU Today article presented a collection of student views, much as it is clear that BU Today was originally planning to present a collection of faculty views. Given that this was initially the plan (as our emails reveal, and as O’Rourke does not deny), one might speculate that this plan was squashed either in response to communications from BU’s leaders, or because of fear as to how these leaders would react if a piece of this kind were published. However the cancellation of that article came about, there has been a failure on the part of BU Today to represent the interests and viewpoints of university faculty on an extremely important and timely topic. That much is very clear.

Recall that, amongst the many other things BU Today has failed to adequately report on, there have been several letters to BU leaders written by various employees, students, and departments at BU, calling on the university to change its policies for the Fall, especially with respect to providing faculty with a choice regarding whether or not they teach online in the fall (without requiring them to request a workplace accommodation that involves revealing personal information and providing medical documentation). There is the letter by Russell Powell and myself, a letter from the English department, a subsequent letter from the graduate students (and faculty) of the English department, a letter from the Department of History of Art and Architecture, a letter from the History department, a letter from the graduate students (and faculty) of the Philosophy department, and letters from the Writing Program. Letters have also been sent to the Boston City Council (from Russell Powell and myself, as well as from Jason Prentice). And, let us not forget, the letter from Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy III, which, as well as addressing the concerns of PhD students, also called for BU faculty to be provided with proper choices. These are just the letters that I am presently aware of. There have also been multiple petitions (including the petitions first mentioned here).

Not unrelatedly, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recently issued a statement, Principles of Academic Governance during the COVID-19 Pandemic, in which it says, ‘In response to growing concern over unilateral actions taken by governing boards and administrations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee on College and University Governance affirms that the fundamental principles and standards of academic governance remain applicable even in the current crisis. These principles are set forth in the AAUP’s Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, formulated in cooperation with the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges and the American Council on Education. The Statement on Government famously recommends “adequate communication” and “joint planning and effort” (commonly referred to as “shared governance”) among governing board, administration, faculty, and students. A key principle articulated in the Statement on Government is that, within the context of shared governance, the faculty has “primary responsibility” for decisions related to academic matters, including “curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.’ (emphasis added)

Two favorite recent reads are After Cruise Ships and Nursing Homes, Will Universities Be the Next COVID-19 Tinderboxes? and USS University. Expressing thoughts much like those that have been expressed by myself and Russell Powell (here and here), the first article says, “[Colleges and universities] need to be honest about the trade-offs. They should publish their estimates of the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths that re-opening will cause. That will allow students, instructors, parents, and the wider community to better understand how much suffering must be endured, and by whom, as the price for the benefits of reopening. These institutions should also state clearly what level of illness will trigger another shutdown.” Michael Otsuka’s recent discussion of this article brought it to my attention. There Professor Otsuka writes, “Why haven’t employers published their estimates of the expected harms of re-opening under the plans they’ve adopted? If it’s because they haven’t done the research, modeling and calculations necessary to underpin such estimates, then they have no business re-opening their campuses to in-person teaching… If it’s because they have done the research, modeling and calculations, but they’re unwilling to share their estimates of harm with students and faculty, then, once again, they have no business re-opening their campuses to in-person teaching.”

Excellent News for International Students, as well as, perhaps, BU Teachers

As the reader is no doubt already aware, the Trump administration has backed down from their plan to implement a new set of ICE guidelines for international students which would have meant overseas students would not have been able to attend colleges that are going online in the Fall, and that they would have needed to leave the US if attending a college that does not start the semester online but suddenly pivots to teaching in online mode at some point during semester due to public health concerns. This decision was announced just before Harvard and MIT were about to begin presenting their lawsuit in a federal court in Boston. It is being reported that the administration will now return to the policy put in place in March of this year, which permits international students to take as many of their courses online as they wish (unlike earlier visa requirements, which required that no more than 25% of a normal course load consist of online classes).

One of the main reasons BU has been forcing the hybrid Learn from Anywhere teaching approach on its generally highly reluctant teachers is because of the large number of international students that they were hoping would provide much needed revenue to the university by attending BU in the Fall and, it was thought, would need to be able to take most of their courses in person, rather than online (roughly 24% of BU students are international students). The decision by ICE to return to the policy put in place in March frees up BU and other similar colleges to offer more courses online. Let us hope we will now finally see BU demonstrating that they care about their faculty by providing them with a genuine option to teach their courses online (without needing to provide private medical details). This option is already provided by many other colleges.

NBC News has published University Professors Fear Returning to Campus as Coronavirus Cases Surge Nationwide, and BU is one of the universities that features in this article. I am quoted as saying, “It would be nice to see BU taking the moral [high] ground and defending their people and faculty,” and Melanie Smith, of the CAS Writing Program, is quoted as saying, “I don’t know if BU administrators realize they have done significant damage to faculty trust.” BU is quoted as saying, “Boston University’s decisions are… not related to those of other institutions of higher education.” This last quote makes me want to ask: shouldn’t BU be trying to work out what is best practice at other universities at this time? It reminds me of the failure of university leaders to appropriately deal with questions about what other colleges are doing when these questions were presented at an earlier Faculty Council meeting. In any case, the university also asked the NBC journalists to modify the first published version of their article to include a claim that BU professors can “request” to work remotely (see the Correction note at the end of the present version of the article). To simply say that we can request to work remotely is somewhat misleading, however, as the university’s process for such requests is one that requires employees to ask for a workplace adjustment on health risk or age grounds (as is also noted in the body of the article). BU did add an “Other” box to the Workplace Adjustment form, but it is presently very unclear what reasons will in fact be recognized by the HR department as legitimate reasons to choose to teach online.

Next week, I intend to open up a comments box on this blog and invite all BU employees who have their workplace adjustment requests rejected to anonymously provide details of what the nature of their request was. It will be interesting to see what the results of the university process are.

BU Professors Publish in Medium and the Conversation, and BU is in the News

One month after sending our open letter to Boston University’s leaders and the university community, my department colleague Russell Powell and I have published an opinion piece in Medium that has its distant origins in that letter: Colleges Must Not Compel People to Teach In Person During the Pandemic. Please share our Medium piece with people who might be interested in it.

Neta C. Crawford, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Boston University, and also an ethicist, today published an article in The Conversation: Ethical Challenges Loom Over Decisions to Resume In-Person College Classes. There is much to agree with and think about in this piece. I voiced a concern in the first comment published below it.

Two days ago, The Washington Post published an article where faculty discontent with BU’s plans for the Fall is mentioned and Russell Powell is quoted: As Young People Drive Infection Spikes, College Faculty Members Fight for the Right to Teach Remotely. Today, The New York Times caught up: Colleges Face Rising Revolts by Professors. Sadly, our petition isn’t mentioned in the Times article, even though petitions at a number of other colleges are mentioned. This is a little odd, given that back on June 11, The Boston Globe led the way for others to follow with Faculty Grow Uneasy as Universities Scramble to Bring Students Back to Campus, which mentions both our petition and a petition at the University of Notre Dame (and, in an odd choice for the Globe, features a photograph of yours truly, looking pensive). Still, the important thing is that the newspapers are reporting on faculty discontent. Speaking of petitions, one can find out which universities have them by looking at this list of university petitions online. It’s maintained, I believe, by PhD candidate Cait S. Kirby, who features in this article in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Top Ten Must Reads from June

Here is a list of my ten favorite articles and Op Ed pieces from June that are about COVID-19 and campus reopening plans for the coming academic year. I have restricted this list to pieces that are not specifically about any particular college or state, and had to discard some good candidates just to minimize repetition. The list is in reverse chronological order.

  1. There is No Safe Way to Reopen Colleges this Fall, Washington Post, June 30: Written by three educators who are also public health researchers, the title says it all.
  2. Colleges Say Campuses can Reopen Safely. Students and Faculty Aren’t Convinced, Vox, June 26: Let’s get real.
  3. College Leaders Must Explain Why — Not Just How — to Return to Campus, EdSurge, June 25: As we said in our Open Letter, universities must be upfront about their rationales for reopening campuses. This is an excellent article that makes many important points about lack of honesty on the part of university administrations, and their failure to address the interests of the public at large.
  4. Your College May Ask You to Sign a Waiver for Harm Inflicted by COVID-19. Don’t do it, Los Angeles Times, June 25: I wish it were as simple as “Don’t do it,” but the article is surely right that people should think very carefully about what they are signing away (much depends on what the consequences of not signing forms will be).
  5. Who Gets to Teach Remotely? The Decisions are Getting Personal, Chronicle of Higher Education, June 22: Many universities are aiming to minimize the number of individual exemptions that they provide to faculty, and some of the examples provided here are simply outrageous.
  6. The Great Reopening Debate, Chronicle of Higher Education, June 18: The title is a misnomer, as the contributors do not debate each other, and there is obviously much to disagree with here no matter what your views are, but it was a good idea to have a range of views published in one place.
  7. Expecting Students to Play it Safe if Colleges Reopen is a Fantasy, New York Times, June 15: A good piece by a psychologist, confirming commonsense.
  8. The Question of Living Spaces, Inside Higher Education, June 12: An architecture expert who publishes on residence halls and a bioethicist from the NIH with expertise regarding infectious diseases explore changes that might be made to living spaces on campus, and caution they will not be enough to prevent infections.
  9. What Will College Be Like in the Fall? New York Times, June 3: As with one of the articles from the Chronicle mentioned above, a number of outlooks are represented here, some of them very pessimistic.
  10. In the Rush to Bring Students to Campus, Professors Ask: What about Us? Washington Post, June 2: As university employees quickly noticed, many university administrations have been very slow to address the interests of employees, instead focusing in their rhetoric on their particular understanding of student preferences. This continues today.

Special Mentions
There are several other good reads that are particularly worth mentioning. First and foremost, I recommend following @MikeOtsuka on Twitter: earlier in the month, I linked to his thread on the evidence that teaching in small classrooms is particularly risky; a more recent thread of his deals with the significant number of students we can estimate will arrive with COVID-19 on university campuses (the thread is about the UK; it would be good to see estimates of the relevant numbers for universities in the US). Second, there is a lot to like about Scott Galloway’s much shared blog post, Higher Ed: Enough Already, which calls on universities to stop with all the other- and self-deception, despite the obnoxious nationalist hyperbole in the last paragraph. Third, there were also important pieces published in May. Stan Yoshinobu’s The Case Against Reopening has been particularly influential. Also notable in May were a blog post reflecting on the purpose of higher education, The Existential Threat to Higher Education is Not What You Think, and my department colleague Russell Powell’s opinion piece (coauthored with Irina Mikhalevich), The Misguided Rush to Reopen Universities. Finally, we shouldn’t forget humorous takes on university plans for the Fall, the best of which (so far as I know) was McSweeney’s A Message from Your University’s Vice President for Magical Thinking — wishful thinking is what it’s all about in the US at this time, and our universities are no exception.