claim: students will not party because they want to do the right thing

[phi-rabbit]

As I see it, blaming students has always been a necessary part of the plan.  Every school knows they can't control student behavior, but the "safe opening" plans are all resting on excellent, if not near-perfect, compliance by students.  Knowing the unlikelihood of this state of affairs, why did they proceed?  Because students (and even more so, students' parents, with the purses) showed a strong preference for a "campus experience."  They insisted they would be good, could be good, if they were given the chance.  If the university said "We aren't going to have in-person instruction because we know students will misbehave" then they would all protest.  And they would also go to one of the other schools in the area who were still promising (in good faith or otherwise) they were going to have in-person instruction.

So what is the university to do?  Open, wait for the inevitable cases to rack up as students (the minority perhaps, but enough) engage in risky behavior, then say "See? You made us do it" and send everyone home.  They have to blame students because students and their parents demanded that students be allowed to prove themselves.  Do I think this is ethical?  No.  Do I think it makes perfect sense from the university's perspective?  Yes.  Do I think students share some blame for it?  Yes, at least a bit, not even so much for the parties but for voting for this outcome with their money.

My school has already opened, and within a week has racked up dozens of cases.  I predict about two more weeks before the curtain falls on the charade.

[quasihumanist]

If the students who were in university mainly to party didn't enroll, a lot of universities would go under.

The students who are here to get an education are usually pretty aware that they are subsidized by students who pay tuition by don't take advantage of our educational services.

[spork]

As I see it, blaming students has always been a necessary part of the plan.  Every school knows they can't control student behavior, but the "safe opening" plans are all resting on excellent, if not near-perfect, compliance by students.  Knowing the unlikelihood of this state of affairs, why did they proceed?  Because students (and even more so, students' parents, with the purses) showed a strong preference for a "campus experience."  They insisted they would be good, could be good, if they were given the chance.  If the university said "We aren't going to have in-person instruction because we know students will misbehave" then they would all protest.  And they would also go to one of the other schools in the area who were still promising (in good faith or otherwise) they were going to have in-person instruction.

So what is the university to do?  Open, wait for the inevitable cases to rack up as students (the minority perhaps, but enough) engage in risky behavior, then say "See? You made us do it" and send everyone home.  They have to blame students because students and their parents demanded that students be allowed to prove themselves.  Do I think this is ethical?  No.  Do I think it makes perfect sense from the university's perspective?  Yes.  Do I think students share some blame for it?  Yes, at least a bit, not even so much for the parties but for voting for this outcome with their money.

My school has already opened, and within a week has racked up dozens of cases.  I predict about two more weeks before the curtain falls on the charade.

Are you willing to identify the state in which your employer is located?

[phi-rabbit]

Are you willing to identify the state in which your employer is located?

Hmmm... I feel a little silly being this cagey, but I'd rather not.  Sorry!

[Cheerful]

Knowing the unlikelihood of this state of affairs, why did they [universities] proceed? Because....

Answers:  $$$$$$ and lack of moral values.

[phi-rabbit]

Knowing the unlikelihood of this state of affairs, why did they [universities] proceed? Because....

Answers:  $$$$$$ and lack of moral values.

I don't actually disagree with any of that.  I just think that the $$$$$$ part is largely accounted for by students and parents insisting that they wanted it this way.  The universities just figured they would throw up their hands and say "See?  We tried" when the inevitable student behavior started.

[PScientist]

What is sad is...on the academic side at my institution, we've put an enormous amount of effort into figuring out safe hybrid in-person teaching, and it's actually going *well*. 

Meanwhile, the residence life staff seem to be putting very little effort into enforcing (or even seriously encouraging) social distancing in the dorms, and it's hard for me to see how we won't have a major outbreak soon among the residential students.  The masks seem to go on in the morning for class and come off in the late afternoon until the next day.

[theblackbox]

As I see it, blaming students has always been a necessary part of the plan.  Every school knows they can't control student behavior, but the "safe opening" plans are all resting on excellent, if not near-perfect, compliance by students.  Knowing the unlikelihood of this state of affairs, why did they proceed?  Because students (and even more so, students' parents, with the purses) showed a strong preference for a "campus experience."  They insisted they would be good, could be good, if they were given the chance.  If the university said "We aren't going to have in-person instruction because we know students will misbehave" then they would all protest.  And they would also go to one of the other schools in the area who were still promising (in good faith or otherwise) they were going to have in-person instruction.

So what is the university to do?  Open, wait for the inevitable cases to rack up as students (the minority perhaps, but enough) engage in risky behavior, then say "See? You made us do it" and send everyone home.  They have to blame students because students and their parents demanded that students be allowed to prove themselves.  Do I think this is ethical?  No.  Do I think it makes perfect sense from the university's perspective?  Yes.  Do I think students share some blame for it?  Yes, at least a bit, not even so much for the parties but for voting for this outcome with their money.

My school has already opened, and within a week has racked up dozens of cases.  I predict about two more weeks before the curtain falls on the charade.

I agree with you, but ultimately feel this irresponsibility on the university administrations should not be downplayed. They made public health and education decisions based on economic concerns about enrollment and tuition/room & board. I'm not naive to think higher ed isn't a business or that this didn't seem the best 'strategic' decision given the cards they were dealt, but I do think it smacks of how awful university governance has become. The lack of coordination with their presumed "business rivals" at other colleges & universities meant they all postured about being able to "keep our campus safe" rather than cooperatively attempting decision-making that was truly best for their communities.

Again, I'm not surprised it played out this way, and I agree with the 'makes perfect sense' argument you make, but I can still be disgusted at the result and blame terrible leadership for not even attempting to work with other surrounding/competing universities to do the right thing.

[theblackbox]

What is sad is...on the academic side at my institution, we've put an enormous amount of effort into figuring out safe hybrid in-person teaching, and it's actually going *well*. 

Meanwhile, the residence life staff seem to be putting very little effort into enforcing (or even seriously encouraging) social distancing in the dorms, and it's hard for me to see how we won't have a major outbreak soon among the residential students.  The masks seem to go on in the morning for class and come off in the late afternoon until the next day.

I'm also seeing this. And I love staff, I really do, but I'm perplexed at how under-prepared they seem to be for some of the realities of isolation and quarantine dorms. (Procedure-wise, not having insufficient materials or staff to do what needs to happen. That part is not their fault.) Students haven't been on campus since March...

[Puget]

I know this is not universal, but students here do really seem to want to do the right thing, and so far so good-- nearly 8000 tests of more than 3000 people so far in August (most in the past week with move in-- about half the students are on campus and the rest remote), and a grand total of 4 positive tests. Monday will be my first day on campus-- it will be weird being back, but I do think we have a good chance of doing this safely. Everyone is being tested twice a week, and students have to show a color coded "passport" on their phone at the start of class, which indicates they are current with their tests and symptom survey.

[phi-rabbit]

Again, I'm not surprised it played out this way, and I agree with the 'makes perfect sense' argument you make, but I can still be disgusted at the result and blame terrible leadership for not even attempting to work with other surrounding/competing universities to do the right thing.

I think we're actually in agreement on nearly all points, and if I sounded like I was downplaying the wrongdoing of the university leadership, that was an error on my part.  I meant more to highlight my frustration with the students and parents for stomping feet and insisting they wanted this, but not to downplay the complicity of the university in the matter.  I've been very vocal all along in criticizing my employer's decisions to the extent that my voice matters (I am contingent faculty).

[Vkw10]

And I love staff, I really do, but I'm perplexed at how under-prepared they seem to be for some of the realities of isolation and quarantine dorms. (Procedure-wise, not having insufficient materials or staff to do what needs to happen. That part is not their fault.) Students haven't been on campus since March...

Housing director on my campus was vocal about need to bring full staff in for a week in July to write and practice procedures. He got extra money to pay them for a week from COVID funds. Turns out that Housing is expected to be completely self-supporting, so most of the staff is off contract during summer. And most of them are covered by FLSA, so they have to be paid hourly rate if they are asked to work camps or come in for training or anything else outside regular schedule. They're seriously motivated to make f2f work, because if we have to send everyone home for semester, they'll be laid off. Unemployment in Texas is not generous.

[Hibush]

I know this is not universal, but students here do really seem to want to do the right thing, and so far so good-- nearly 8000 tests of more than 3000 people so far in August (most in the past week with move in-- about half the students are on campus and the rest remote), and a grand total of 4 positive tests. Monday will be my first day on campus-- it will be weird being back, but I do think we have a good chance of doing this safely. Everyone is being tested twice a week, and students have to show a color coded "passport" on their phone at the start of class, which indicates they are current with their tests and symptom survey.

My place is also coming in at just about 1/1000 positives of new arrivals (from elsewhere or from WFH/summer). Positives are immediately isolated and contact tracing is done so the spread is very limited. It may work yet. Research universities that can test everyone at least weekly in house have a significant advantage. New arrivals have to quarantine, but only until their test comes back negative. That is typically one night, not two weeks.

Still, many are worried about house parties that become superspreader events.

[polly_mer]

First-year student at Chapel Hill on her experience: https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/08/college-campus-diary-covid-19.html

[Hibush]

First-year student at Chapel Hill on her experience: https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/08/college-campus-diary-covid-19.html

Even though they were masked, the pictures with the article shows cheek-to-cheek selfies and tight group shots. They are not avoiding infection at all!