Although Fauci works very hard to avoid definitive statements, I worry about how this one may influence college leaders’ decision-making. https://twitter.com/jackstripling/status/1264029006040621057

I’ve been trying to square the push for in-person instruction. Trying to put myself in the shoes of leaders or committee members exploring options. Money is persuasive but also seems too simplistic. External pressure is likely part of it, but I still think there’s more.

Certainly other parts of society and economy opening provide some justification, though many have rightly pointed out that colleges are uniquely good incubators of illness. Nevertheless, it may be hard to be cautious if everything else is open.

I see two possibilities that I haven’t seen discussed yet much. First is the power of following guidelines. There seems to be an extreme emphasis on following guidelines in messages I’ve seen. I’m wondering if leaders see those & decide they can pull them off.

Guidelines provide something of a rule book. A threshold to meet, after which leaders can say they did everything by the book. I think makes it easier to countenance bringing people back with a set of “standards.”

This relates to the idea of “creeping legalism” in higher ed, as my colleague @ProfAndrewRyder and @ezekielkimball wrote about. Legalistic ways of reasoning about risk and best courses of action are now the norm in higher ed.

The second is about the power of students as consumers. I’ve seen a number of leaders talking about the emails and phone calls they’ve received from students and parents. Responding to those calls and meeting students’ expectations seems to have a big pull.

In a time of tuition dependence, students become a leaders’ top constituency when making decisions. This is perhaps as it should be, on some level. We’re all here because of students. We don’t have jobs without them.

But it perhaps also makes leaders overly deferential to students, overly concerned about their experience, overly worried about delivering product given the price. These are fine goals, unless it means *relativizing* the welfare of other constituents.

It may be easier to push for in-person instruction if, as Fauci says, students face relatively low risk of serious illness. With this info & confidence in meeting guidelines, along w/ the& external pressures & sheer optimism, leaders may be inclined to explore this option.

I’m not endorsing this logic. Just trying to understand the factors driving announcements that have been hard for me to comprehend. It may boil down to: “We think we can follow guidelines to keep students safe by August, and students will reward us for taking the risk.” (End)