Read on Twitter
Ok so this NYT op-ed about reopening ND is a mess. And *incredibly* on brand. (1/?)
First of all, war as an example of acceptable risk? Framing it as if the only risks to consider are the lives of US soldiers & conveniently ignoring countless (usually non-white) lives taken/communities destabilized by the US military on foreign soil. Again, not shocking. (2/?)
This is also the basic framing he’s using to justify reopening campus. Sure there’s a risk, but the students will be fine, right? Very little mention of the (likely) more vulnerable populations that are impacted, i.e. faculty, staff, and members of the South Bend community. (3/?)
That last point is important. ND’s campus doesn’t exist in a vacuum & SB will bear the negative consequences. The healthcare workers put at risk should there be an outbreak are local residents, the hospitals that‘ll be overwhelmed are those serving South Bend families, etc. (4/?)
And, yes, I understand the economic benefits the greater South Bend community faces with ND students returning to the housing market, revenue from football season, etc. But I’m not interested in having the “tradeoff” conversation re: economic gain vs preventable mass death. (5/?)
But back to the actual text of the op-ed. How are you going to act like the March for Life is THE most important event on the face of the planet every year and then put this in writing..? In the New York Times??? (6/?)
Bottom line is that ND as an institution swears by a “pro-life” agenda, yet consistently makes decisions to put profit over people—and frames those decisions to conveniently ignore harm faced by impacted communities that are outside of the university’s immediate interests. (7/7)
