"The requirement to attend a university lecture on infectious disease should be at least as stringent as the requirement to, say, play bingo."
Author of the article: Saleema Nawaz • Special to Montreal Gazette
Publishing date:Aug 30, 2021 •
While the idea of McGill as the Harvard of the North makes for a fun novelty shirt, the comparison only goes so far.
PHOTO BY ALLEN MCINNIS /Montreal Gazette
For more than a dozen years, I worked at McGill University. Every fall, a group of enterprising students would set up a table outside the Roddick Gates on Sherbrooke St., hawking T-shirts that read “Harvard: America’s McGill.” Whoever the target audience was for these shirts — I always imagined American students and their parents, with a little extra cash in their wallets after opting for the more affordable Canadian university system — it seemed to be a profitable business model.
But while the idea of McGill as the Harvard of the North makes for a fun novelty shirt, the comparison only goes so far. For one thing, Harvard University is requiring all students to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 this fall. So are Yale, Columbia and the University of Toronto — not to mention the University of Ottawa, the University of New Brunswick and the University of Manitoba, among many other Canadian and American universities.
If McGill is truly a world-class institution for higher education, shouldn’t it be leading by example?
McGill faculty members seem to think so. In a letter to the university administration, several hundred professors called for a vaccine mandate and outlined grave concerns about the university’s return-to-campus plan, which relies heavily on masking but not does not require vaccination, physical distancing or routine testing. The McGill Association of University Teachers issued a similar request. And a letter from 12 members of the faculty of law expressed the opinion that McGill has a legal obligation to request proof of vaccination for on-campus activities or risk exposing itself to liability.
But the official McGill response on the question of mandatory vaccination was a disappointment to many who hoped the university would be at least as proactive in protecting its community as its peer institutions. Instead, the provost suggested McGill’s hands were tied, observing: “Vaccination is a medical procedure. Under Quebec law, people have the right to refuse to undergo a recommended medical procedure, unless otherwise provided for in law.”
The statement goes on, but to me it reads like a cop-out, one that unfortunately plays into the hands of the most vocal anti-vaxxers. Pinning the lack of a vaccine policy to this principle seems especially odd since campus mandates are not at all the same thing as forced vaccinations. Nobody is suggesting the university has the right to give anybody the jab against their will — only that the requirement to attend a university lecture on infectious disease should be at least as stringent as the requirement to, say, play bingo.
A detailed response, this time signed by 35 McGill law professors, outlined the reasons why they find the provost’s message to be “unpersuasive and factually inaccurate.” Even though the government of Quebec has deemed education an essential service not subject to the vaccine passport, these McGill legal scholars believe the university has the clear authority to impose an internal regulation such as a less onerous proof of vaccination. Moreover, appropriate exemptions could be granted and accommodations could be made to deliver the necessary essential services to eligible students.
These concerned professors also point to McGill’s large cohort of international students. While Quebec’s vaccination levels are relatively high, McGill has thousands of out-of-province and international students — who, unlike foreign tourists, can enter Canada with a valid study permit without being fully vaccinated, provided their institution has a COVID-19 readiness plan.
Concordia University does not yet have a campus vaccine mandate, either. Like McGill, Concordia is merely strongly encouraging vaccination for its students and offering a one-day on-campus vaccination clinic.
It seems that both universities are hoping sheer inconvenience will be enough to encourage unvaccinated students who may be on the fence, since many other campus services will require use of Quebec’s vaccine passport, including gyms and dining halls.
A McGill coronavirus update published Aug. 26 reads: “Without a vaccine passport, your McGill experience will be much less fun.” I found this depressing to read. Shouldn’t universities be educating students and promoting the validity of science, instead of coddling them or pandering to their imagined selfishness? A better iteration, to my mind: “Unless you are fully vaccinated, your presence on campus will be too risky for other members of the McGill community.”
As it stands, vulnerable students and staff are the ones who must apply for special accommodations — with additional paperwork and the disclosure of even more personal medical documentation, which is burdensome and unfair.
Maybe McGill should consider itself the Harvard of the North. Then it might choose to be a leader in Quebec and Canada and use its influence for positive change and vaccine confidence, heeding the advice of its own experts in medicine, law and public health. Instead, the administration is sending a murky message about vaccines to the world at large and putting vulnerable students and staff at risk, not to mention the wider Montreal community.
For more than a dozen years, I worked at McGill University. Every fall, a group of enterprising students would set up a table outside the Roddick Gates on Sherbrooke St., hawking T-shirts that read “Harvard: America’s McGill.” Whoever the target audience was for these shirts — I always imagined American students and their parents, with a little extra cash in their wallets after opting for the more affordable Canadian university system — it seemed to be a profitable business model.
But while the idea of McGill as the Harvard of the North makes for a fun novelty shirt, the comparison only goes so far. For one thing, Harvard University is requiring all students to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 this fall. So are Yale, Columbia and the University of Toronto — not to mention the University of Ottawa, the University of New Brunswick and the University of Manitoba, among many other Canadian and American universities.
If McGill is truly a world-class institution for higher education, shouldn’t it be leading by example?
McGill faculty members seem to think so. In a letter to the university administration, several hundred professors called for a vaccine mandate and outlined grave concerns about the university’s return-to-campus plan, which relies heavily on masking but not does not require vaccination, physical distancing or routine testing. The McGill Association of University Teachers issued a similar request. And a letter from 12 members of the faculty of law expressed the opinion that McGill has a legal obligation to request proof of vaccination for on-campus activities or risk exposing itself to liability.
But the official McGill response on the question of mandatory vaccination was a disappointment to many who hoped the university would be at least as proactive in protecting its community as its peer institutions. Instead, the provost suggested McGill’s hands were tied, observing: “Vaccination is a medical procedure. Under Quebec law, people have the right to refuse to undergo a recommended medical procedure, unless otherwise provided for in law.”
The statement goes on, but to me it reads like a cop-out, one that unfortunately plays into the hands of the most vocal anti-vaxxers. Pinning the lack of a vaccine policy to this principle seems especially odd since campus mandates are not at all the same thing as forced vaccinations. Nobody is suggesting the university has the right to give anybody the jab against their will — only that the requirement to attend a university lecture on infectious disease should be at least as stringent as the requirement to, say, play bingo.
A detailed response, this time signed by 35 McGill law professors, outlined the reasons why they find the provost’s message to be “unpersuasive and factually inaccurate.” Even though the government of Quebec has deemed education an essential service not subject to the vaccine passport, these McGill legal scholars believe the university has the clear authority to impose an internal regulation such as a less onerous proof of vaccination. Moreover, appropriate exemptions could be granted and accommodations could be made to deliver the necessary essential services to eligible students.
These concerned professors also point to McGill’s large cohort of international students. While Quebec’s vaccination levels are relatively high, McGill has thousands of out-of-province and international students — who, unlike foreign tourists, can enter Canada with a valid study permit without being fully vaccinated, provided their institution has a COVID-19 readiness plan.
Concordia University does not yet have a campus vaccine mandate, either. Like McGill, Concordia is merely strongly encouraging vaccination for its students and offering a one-day on-campus vaccination clinic.
It seems that both universities are hoping sheer inconvenience will be enough to encourage unvaccinated students who may be on the fence, since many other campus services will require use of Quebec’s vaccine passport, including gyms and dining halls.
A McGill coronavirus update published Aug. 26 reads: “Without a vaccine passport, your McGill experience will be much less fun.” I found this depressing to read. Shouldn’t universities be educating students and promoting the validity of science, instead of coddling them or pandering to their imagined selfishness? A better iteration, to my mind: “Unless you are fully vaccinated, your presence on campus will be too risky for other members of the McGill community.”
As it stands, vulnerable students and staff are the ones who must apply for special accommodations — with additional paperwork and the disclosure of even more personal medical documentation, which is burdensome and unfair.
Maybe McGill should consider itself the Harvard of the North. Then it might choose to be a leader in Quebec and Canada and use its influence for positive change and vaccine confidence, heeding the advice of its own experts in medicine, law and public health. Instead, the administration is sending a murky message about vaccines to the world at large and putting vulnerable students and staff at risk, not to mention the wider Montreal community.
No comments:
Post a Comment