Purdue University's president argues for returning to face-to-face education this fall.

Some interesting details here.

(1/n) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-have-a-responsibility-to-open-purdue-university-this-fall/2020/05/25/da3b615c-9c62-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html

First, Daniels makes a strong case by age, finding COVID's dangers to be essentially targeting "the elderly and the infirm."
He finds young people (again, under 35) to be comparatively safe.

(2/n)

"this bug, so risky in one segment of the population, poses a near-zero risk to young people"

(3/n)

Speaking of which, Daniels brags about his enrollment:

"We know it is not the case everywhere, but at Purdue, tuition deposits by incoming freshmen have shattered last year’s record"

"not the case everywhere, but at Purdue..."
(4/n)

Then listen to how Daniels describes a decision to be online in fall:

“Sorry, we are too incompetent or too fearful to figure out how to protect your elders, so you have to disrupt your education"

incompetent or fearful. What a shot.
(5/n)

Daniels hammers that point in his conclusion:

"with 45,000 students waiting and the financial wherewithal to do what’s necessary, failure to take on the job of reopening would be not only anti-scientific but also an unacceptable breach of duty."

(6/n)

Note the bit about science. He uses that word 5x in this short piece, by my count.

That does two things:
1) wards of charges of being anti-science
2) celebrates Purdue's science capacity

(7/n)

Along with the science + expertise rhetoric, Daniels outlines a stack of health measures.

Here's one slice of them:

(8/n)

And another slice of those measures:

(9/n)

What I don't see in Daniels' article is any sense of infection.
What happens when those under-35 Boilermakers carry their infections to family, work, community?
How will Purdue prevent that from happening, from becoming an infection nexus?

(10/10)