BY MATTHEW BOEDY
When it became increasingly obvious to me and my colleagues in Georgia through campus town halls and meetings that our university system would not institute a mask mandate for all during our upcoming fall semester, our AAUP chapter grew concerned.
The why of that decision is surely political, since Georgia is a “red state” with a Republican governor. But it is also an oddity, considering that major universities in other red states have announced a mask rule.
And now that Georgia is seeing a rise in cases, we are hopeful that political calculus will change.
I narrate our attempts at organizing around this issue not to tell you steps you probably already know. Here is how we responded:
We did what advocacy chapters do—communicate with those concerned at all levels.
I narrate these last few days to argue that even in a losing battle (so far) organizing or at least trying to corral energy around an issue can aid your chapter by showing its work to the faculty as a whole.
This energy can be turned over to the next issue and the next. And to build some membership.
Recruiting members can happen as members tell others about the AAUP in the longue or in the hallway. But as we all shelter at home and teach online, the collegiately aspect of AAUP moves online, too.
So we are left with email as an organizing tool.
I will say as state conference president I have had much communication from faculty around the state that I normally wouldn’t have. A few new members, too.
At my own school, I have gotten supportive emails, too.
This shows me sometimes it is important to fight losing battles.
I helped to fight another losing battle over campus carry in our state three years ago and that led me to the AAUP. So there are benefits to this sort of work even if the outcome is likely not to change.
And of course, sometimes the outcome can change.
Let me note that as a chapter we didn’t set out with a strategy. We didn’t get together and vote. It was a lot of individuals doing things here and there, and letting the others know. Unfocused sure, but our frustrated energy had to go somewhere.
As others posted laments on the university discussion board and Facebook, I wrote an email to our university system’s chancellor asking for a mask mandate.
He replied at 11 pm on a Sunday.
While his reply was unexpected to a relatively junior faculty at a third-tier school, especially on a weekend, he confirmed what we were hearing.
That prompted me to write an op-ed for the most read blog (an education blog called Get Schooled) at the state’s largest newspaper.
That led to an interview with a reporter from the Chronicle of Higher Education which led to a story.
While I was trying to use media and public attention to force support for a mask mandate, our faculty senate chair (an ally of our chapter) wrote emails to our campus administration.
Our chapter president filled out the comment box on the university system’s website. That led to a personal reply from our president’s chief of staff where she dropped the news unknown to faculty up to that point that our school would be buying masks for all (though not requiring them to be worn).
Others wrote emails to our administration, making it clear we as faculty were not only concerned as individuals but as a growing critical mass.
But while all of our neighboring states have announced a mask mandate and as my colleagues and I have become more agitated and worried, still the university system remains stoic.
The chancellor’s reply to me implied what we knew: he was following the lead of the governor, who was infamous for learning way too late that asymptomatic carriers can spread the virus.
As it so happens, the week of June 15 our legislators began to meet again to hurriedly finish our state budget for next year. The capitol building was awash in masks after leaders instituted a mandate.
And oh, by the way, our university system had announced a series of furlough days among other cuts in their budget proposals.
So I wrote the representatives and senators (all GOP) who represent my school’s geographic area asking them to pressure the governor and the federal government to make a mandate. [I also asked my colleagues to do the same.]
One state House member replied to express his concern for faculty but pointed to the governor as head of state agencies.
So in some way we ended up where we started after firing off many emails. We knew the university system was following the lead of the governor. [By the way I emailed the governor’s chief of staff, too. No reply yet.]
We continue to work with our administration on plans for in-person classes, especially for how social distancing will work. And we are thinking of more physical demonstrations of our desire for a mask mandate as we get closer to fall, should things continue as they are.
I am not sure about the efficiency of our organizing but it has been effective at uniting us. In an advocacy state amid a pandemic with distanced and disillusioned faculty concerned about state and local administration forgetting about them, it is something of a bright spot.
Hope that helps.
Guest blogger Matthew Boedy is associate professor of rhetoric and composition at the University of North Georgia and president of the state’s AAUP conference.
The writer says concerning voluntary face mask policy, “The why of that decision is surely political.” It is indeed, and the AAUP conference president just ratified it.
Otherwise, C19 is notionally an RDS, and its propagation is theoretically atmospheric, not merely per se respiratory within a distancing calculus. Ask UChicago’s Provost, Ka Yee Lee who is an expert on government and DoD sponsored membrane biophysics. That means you would need much more than a mere mask: they are like taking your shoes off in airport security–it is merely security “theater.” But it reinforces and confirms one primary thing: infantile group behavior, and that, like a complying child, you will do what you are told. Hence the mask’s especially symbolic significance in educational institutions.
Moreover, some credible reports indicate that masks may actually trap and intensify several bacterial and viral phenomenon, acting as effective “fly paper.” Moreover, just as over 1/3 of Americans are obese, the ADA and the CDC (surely you believe them) report that 47.2% of adults aged 30 years and older have some form of periodontal disease, and 70.1% of adults 65 years and older have advanced periodontal disease. That means, your face mask is an incubating “petri dish” of oral gum and tooth bacteria: utterly disgusting. Masks are actually a public health risk as most “folks” re-use their masks and have no reliable proof of sterilization.
So, by all means, wear one if you like, but appreciate that they may actually be counter-productive. In fact, they are absolutely hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raV2Ua1xeHc.
Otherwise, there is no prohibition to wearing whatever facial and other coverings you may seek to employ in public spaces, and they can even have political messages on them in free speech doctrine. That may be their highest utility, including their filtering of audible political-cognitive incoherency under disguised identity. Regards, ’96, University of Chicago
This argument against masks is completely devoid of any scientific merit and should be rejected by all rational people. The scientific evidence for masks is overwhelming: https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-the-science-is-simple-and-im-one-of-100-experts-urging-governors-to-require-public-mask-wearing-138507
That is an interesting statement.
First, I make no per se argument “against” masks; I merely point out that there are other considerations that may be worthy of…consideration. To consider. To ponder. To contemplate. To think about. I state that you should indeed wear one–knock your socks off–if you feel it appropriate. Your language asserts that even consideration itself should be closed down; that thinking should not even be undertaken; that it is “case closed” based on a commercial article as evidence. Questioning, according to your view, it seems, should be foreclosed, and “all rational people” should reject such blasphemy. This is rather classic logical fallacy in an appeal to authority and flattery (“all rational people”), combined with a hasty and sweeping generalization (“completely devoid”), which are unfortunately toward the bottom of the hierarchy of disagreement.
Second, you overlook that “all people” may include individuals who cannot wear restrictive facial coverings, for a number of reasons, including medical, religious, aesthetic, scientific or occupational. Are they thereby irrational? The scientific evidence is also strong that these flimsy, paper or cloth masks are “germ catchers” and unsanitary when taken off and put on a table, for example, and exposed to surfaces, and to your hands, by manipulating it. Moreover, how should one dispose of a mask? All over public spaces you see them causally left on coffee tables, sofas, subways, airline seats, on the floor, in conference rooms, in parking lots, clutched in someone’s open hand, in open waste paper baskets, in restrooms; and more. It’s appalling, and unsanitary. Soon the college campus will be littered with them–a waste fill of open, decomposing and soiled masks with a convenient collection of every bacteria, virus or germ known to mankind. No thank you.
Last, it is unfortunate that your AAUP conference president colleague makes no objections but those centered in politics (he asserts, in an association fallacy, that “it is surely political.” How does he know that?). He collapses his thoughts into a simplistic analogue choice over “right thinking democrats” versus “wrong thinking republicans.” This is how adolescents think; hence part of the infantalism of the debate. And the disquieting implications regarding the academy’s culture.
So, to conclude, again: my argument is, by all means wear a mask if you choose to wear one; and consider–just consider–that they may carry other risks, or that they may not provide any protections whatsoever, if C19 is in fact a ubiquitous atmospheric pathogen causing RDS (respiratory distress syndrome) in which case you would need military grade or “mil-spec” protections. This is why I say flimsy paper or cloth masks really only create an illusion of safety–against any airborne particle–just like airport security exists largely to assuage the public with symbolism–and to behaviorally condition them. The “mask” is largely a behavioral project, not a true science and health one. Politics needs symbols. The face mask is in effect, an armband of party allegiance, and social belonging.
In fact, what I am calling for is a higher level of public safety, through knowledge. That begins with questions, not by ideology that forecloses them. It requires skepticism, probity and tests of falsification; not blind obedience, group-think or reliance on untested secondary information. Some call this kind of skepticism in higher education, the “Chicago School.” With Regards, ’96, UChicago
“Otherwise, C19 is notionally an RDS, and its propagation is theoretically atmospheric, not merely per se respiratory within a distancing calculus.”
Well, notionally, you are best playing a devil’s advocate regarding a risk situation, where, even if you are correct, the masks are not “useless” and they do mitigate. I suddenly sneezed the other day while out. I was wearing a mask, so much of its ” theoretically atmospheric, not merely per se respiratory” discharge was the business of my own chin, not the person I just happened to be passing in the grocery isle.
A rather painless act that does have some mitigation vs. advocating against the rather painless act .
As Kenny Rogers might ask, how is taking on more risk, that costs you little to not take on, a good wagering strategy?
Seems like you just got an axe to grind against not being a wide open gambler. But let me remind you, there are four rules to gambling. Know when to hold them. Know when to fold them. Know when to walk away. Know when to run.
This issue is not a “game” I am willing to play. I am choosing option 3. There is no need to take on added risk, when even theoretically notional protection costs me next to nothing. I jst am not playing the game, there is no upside to it. The risk proposition stinks, and trying to say, yeah but the risk ain’t that bad, is missing the point.
What do you get if you “win” Matt? Bragging rights? It is a senseless game over a senseless risk. Why play it? I just am not seeing the upside here.
Dear Mr. Canis:
You made your case based on your rationale, and that’s as it should be. I do not frame my argument in risk probability and harm doctrine, nor am I sharpening any axe, except the one shaped as a question mark. It is otherwise a rational choice criteria based on knowledge and informed preference, not on emotional or ideological solidarity, or even public science narrative; but, again, if those criteria serve your level of behavioral autonomy, then it should likely be obeyed.
I also do not assert that masks are “useless.” They may, or may not, be either effective in their total human use profile (i.e. touching them, removing them, placing them on surfaces, or discarding them in the open, after you “sneeze” into it multiple times), or by their inherent design (they are porous and do not create a seal). I do indeed equate part of their adoption phenomena as irrational, if only by a preponderance of political ideology–versus primary, tested data–associated with the regime within which they are a social artifact. Comics as philosophy, indeed. But again, somewhat (somewhat) like wearing a copper bracelet for its purported health benefits, or for that matter, wearing a clove of garlic around your neck, and a cross of Jesus; a star of David or a necklace of Allah, if it fits in your belief scaffolding, then it has purpose and needs no justification.
But more to the point: On a higher education policy level, and more importantly, I wonder if all the constituents in the university complex–from faculty and staff, to students, parents, alumnae and guests–are thinking through where this is all going?
Face masks are an obvious and temporary “bridge” solution in the C19 construct, which at its core is driving toward a campus testing, tracking and vaccine agenda which is being heavily lobbied in Congress as we speak (see the Rockefeller Report, participated in by several R1 institutions: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/national-covid-19-testing-action-plan/). The law school network, especially in the Stanford-Chicago-Yale-Harvard axis, is also heavily lobbying the judicial branches with jurisprudence theories that may be relied on in contested or constitutionally resisted vaccine enforcement. A recent monograph and major media public relations essay by UChicago Law, asserted a “self-harm” or “self-infection” doctrine stemming from health “passport” policy incentives, which implies for the judiciary that they must rule with a public safety mandate of forced vaccination.
This may eventually flow down to the campus level where students and faculty will be effectively “blackmailed” with suppressed transcripts and diplomas; and for faculty, frozen wages and benefits, unless universal compliance with CDC (the de facto new DOE) and other federal and private sector experimental serum, is accepted. In fact, the vaccine may be asserted as serial, annual and even part of a larger vaccine complex or “cocktail.” You may be lining up after an email alert, in the campus Covid dispensary with nurses, doctors and security agents in protective space gear, filmed and recorded, e-verified, and tracked and traced with a mandatory monitor; your every move, carefully directed and enforced under penalty.
So, by all means deploy a face mask; however one may want to wear Teflon undergarments, for as the military says, “watch your six:” there is a large federal syringe aimed at it. Where the AAUP is headed philosophically, is obvious. Where many parents and students are going, rather divergent.
With Regards, ’96, The University of Chicago
Very confused. Help me. You say.
“You may be lining up after an email alert, in the campus Covid dispensary with nurses, doctors and security agents in protective space gear, filmed and recorded, e-verified, and tracked and traced with a mandatory monitor; your every move, carefully directed and enforced under penalty.
So, by all means deploy a face mask; however one may want to wear Teflon undergarments, for as the military says, “watch your six:” there is a large federal syringe aimed at it. Where the AAUP is headed philosophically, is obvious.”
Simple question: are you serious? That should be a yes or no question, by the way.
Kudos for your advocacating for the health of faculty when administration ignores your concerns and others ridicule your concerns. You are right to keep pushing, as the process is as important as the product — in this case a requirement to take all necessary safety measures during a pandemic. Use everything that is wrong to call attention to why and that is so. To reach a goal is good. To try to do so, and fail, is also of value. Our AAUP colleague Don Eron refers to this as “failing forward.” We are hosting Zooms to help adjunct faculty get state unemployment benefits and federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance. In this process we have gained five new members. Helping friends in a difficult time is part of organizing. It is one of the most beautiful and rewarding parts, and you don’t have to be an expert. You have to care. People take note of that.
Pingback: Prediction: Conservatives will be targeted by peers for coronavirus infractions | The College Fix
Really, are we arguing about the efficacy of wearing masks? They save lives. Period. End of discussion. We know this to be true. I’m not even going to bother citing the studies. Matt’s point, I believe, is that we need to keep pushing our administration to do what’s right. Honestly, we should be shutting down our campuses and going fully remote — but that appears to be “a bridge to far” in Georgia. At the very least, if they can’t keep us all safe through remote reaching, the powers that be should mandate masks on campus. We’re talking about people’s lives.