Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF BOSTON COLLEGE REPUBLICANS
We, the Boston College Republicans, condemn in the strongest possible terms the University's decision to create and use the new COVID-19 online reporting form. The policy exacerbates the culture of fear, suspicion, and mistrust between students, which has led to a decline in mental health in our community and across the country. It is also a disturbing appropriation of ideas from the Soviet handbook, and is antithetical to principles of a free society. The reporting form is rife with problems. First and foremost, the identity of complainants may be kept anonymous. Complainants are required to submit their contact information when making a complaint, but they have the option to not be contacted as part of the process. The form states that Boston College may not continue with an investigation in that case, but that does not preclude the possibility that a student may be investigated without facing their accuser. The right of the accused to face their accuser is a nearly 2,000 year-old tradition dating back to the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan, and even a hint at betraying such a tradition is disconcerting. Boston College has not made clear how the reporting form will be used to investigate and punish students found in violation of the Code of Conduct. How will due process be followed? What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of the system? It is conceivable that this form might be used to exercise a personal vendetta, and the form does not state what burden of proof is required to indict a student accused of violating the Code of Conduct. We demand transparency; the process must be self-evident and clearly articulated to the student body, lest it be liable to abuse. This reporting tool mirrors the mechanisms for controlling citizens, used in the past by authoritarian, persecuting regimes. Utilized by regimes like Fidel Castro’s Cuba, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet bloc, the concept of reporting neighbors and loved ones for not following authority is not a stranger to history. Within a college campus, the utilization of these rules can have similar devastating results to the culture and atmosphere of the school. Rather than fostering a culture full of compassion and understanding, a mechanism like this fosters an atmosphere of fear, suspicion and mistrust. It also creates a culture of compliance out of fear, rather than one’s own choice to be virtuous themselves. It wholly diminishes the principles of personal responsibility and individuality, and instead begets a culture of virtue-signaling, fear mongering, and “snitching.” Simply put, this policy neglects the lessons taught in our classes and at church in favor of naked authoritarianism. Cura Personalis, or “the care for the whole person’ is at the center of Jesuit tradition. However, this policy disregards the spiritual and mental health of students for fear of physical health. For most students, the virus poses minimal physical risk. So far, 525 people aged 15-24 have died from Covid-19, out of 15,222,638 total positive cases among the entire American population. By contrast, in 2017, prior to a shutdown that did an extensive amount of damage to the population’s mental health, 6,252 people aged 18-24 took their own life. In 2020, drug overdose deaths in the United States reached record highs. Both of these mental health-related illnesses pose a significant threat to young adults, yet the policies enacted by the administration only exacerbate the stressors that lead young adults to succumb to such illnesses: stressors such as isolation, anxiety, stress, and distrust of both authority figures, as well as peers. Finally, we ask the question, “to what end is this policy being enacted?” Are the current protocols not sufficient to prevent the spread of the virus? Over the summer, as Boston College reported how they would proceed with in-person instruction for the Fall semester, students took to social media to criticize the administration’s so-called “lack of a plan” to deal with the virus. Schools who decided to bring students back to campus were criticized in the media, in academic journals, and blogs. Some colleges sent students home after the first small spike in cases; Boston College weathered the storm. Everyone was proven wrong. In the fall semester, the administration administered 118,118 tests, and recorded only 418 positive test results, a 0.353% positivity rate. By Boston College’s own metrics, the regimen of testing, contact tracing, and social distancing mandates were more than sufficient to achieve Boston College’s goal. Our campus’ plan was a smashing success, which renders any need for additional measures, particularly ill-conceived and authoritarian measures, unnecessary. The Boston College community has proven that it can be trusted to act virtuously without the need for policies reminiscent of the post-totalitarian structures of the Soviet Union. To the administration, we urge you to abandon this dangerous and quixotic policy. And to our classmates, we implore you to reject the administration’s attempt to force this new policy on us. We swore that we would follow the Eagles Care pledge, and we have. We need not succumb to a culture of mistrust and fear. This policy is only effective if we give our assent to using it; if we come together in opposition to these unjust tactics, the administration’s facilitation of deceitful, oppressive methods will be unsuccessful. |