I have seen some argue that college students are young and less susceptible. Well, college faculty are not young; they also have no way of social distancing in a classroom. This is an incredibly complex issue; if even one person dies because a college chose to open up, it is unacceptable. It’s like allowing loaded weapons in the classroom, with several people randomly firing shots continuously.
I know I heard that the SEC was going to have football in the Fall. I don't think they will. The legal repercussions for those colleges could be severe. 100,000 people in a stadium is not a good reciept for virus protection.I think more college football fans will worry about this issue since football season starts in September ....
Thank you. In all these discussions - directly sports related here and political on other forums - there is a tendency not to recognize that these issues are complex. We stake positions and don't budge.
One of the political battles that is yet to be fought will be the push by some in Congress to exempt businesses from coronavirus related lawsuits. I have mixed emotions about that initiative. On the one hand, businesses, including colleges, should not get a pass on taking all reasonable precautions to protect employees, customers and students. On the other hand, given the potential for asymptomatic transmission of this highly infectious disease, it is virtually impossible for any business to put in place a foolproof plan to completely protect everyone.Perhaps the example of Liberty University will prove a harbinger of what could happen if universities open up. Liberty, which told its students to return for the spring semester, has just been sued by a student alleging that remaining open and telling its students
"to continue to use their housing, meal plans, parking, and the benefits of the services and activities for which their fees paid, was not only illusory and empty—because there were no more on-campus classes—but it was also extremely dangerous and irresponsible,"
The key words are "extremely dangerous and irresponsible." What if UConn were to open up with a resurgence of the virus underway? I can't envision a scenario in which the university is closed to the general student population, but an exception is made to permit basketball players, or the other fall sports athletes, to return, remain in athletes' dorms, and gather together in gym changing facilities and showers, yet the university leaders feel no worries about the consequences.
Agreed. The other thing isolation has done, however, is control the damage to our medical system. That was the whole point of flattening the curve. If we decide to "spike the curve" instead, at what point do the for-profit medical corporations that form the backbone of health care in the US decide to throw in the towel?
I agree completely with the "competing dynamics" and trade-offs that that are a factor not just for universities but for all areas of our society. Like it or not there is a cost for human life vs a destroyed economy. Everybody has their own view on that, but those kind of difficult decisions are now everywhere to be made. All decision makers have to make very difficult choices where they could be wrong on either side of the aggressive vs conservative debate. History may show who was right or wrong if one approach was clearly the best one in hindsight, but more likely is that whatever happens, major parts of the population will still disagree after the fact because of their relative views on the importance of lives vs. the economy.
If schools aren't open for the general student population, then there should be no sports programs. The NCAA and the power conference's have pushed the Student Athletes for years. If they play without the general student population, then they have no way to say the athletes are student's.
That horse left the barn years ago, and unfortunately has permeated almost all sports at the collegiate level, and is trickling down to high school student-athletes.
I agree with your position. My position is a little more nuanced. If colleges open up with on-campus classes in some fashion, there is no guarantee that college sports will necessarily follow.
With mentioning of both "needs" and "wants" in an effective way, I sense there is some economics training in your background, am I correct? Most people consider the majority of what they spend money on to be "needs" when most of those items are probably more properly defined as "wants", with true needs being only those things that are necessary to stay alive, like food and basic shelter and clothing.
The original post said a number of universities "are looking at" bringing students back on campus. Simply considering their options seems ok, but actually populating their campuses and classrooms does seem "irresponsible," or worse, IF strategies for protecting against infection and much more pervasive testing are not firmly in place by the time they open their campuses.
Critical problem here is that even by your own reasoning, a single positive test means any player on their own team or any team they've played in the past week would also have to quarantine for several weeks, which means both teams would have to forfeit up to two weeks' worth of games as a result of a single positive test.
