seems a student at Rutgers U was attending class virtually, meaning he was 70 miles from campus on a pc. Rutgers asked him if he was vaxxed. He said no. They have removed him from class. Now who wants to defend this move? How to describe it really other than totalitarian, communistic, power hungry and embarrasingly stupid.
Thanks mcfarm!
Here's where you got the story from:
Logan Hollar, a student from Rutgers, plans to transfer to another University
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/rutgers-bars-unvaccinated-student-from-attending-virtual-classes
This is where FOX got it from:
https://nypost.com/2021/09/07/rutgers-bars-unvaccinated-student-from-attending-virtual-classes/
metmike: There are several points that were not properly communicated.
1. This student is not kicked out but he just did not follow the clearly stated procedures from many months ago, that he had to have known(ignorance would be no excuse either).
2. In a purely virtual degree/program, he wouldn't have had to do anything. Just take his classed online. He was good to go. However, his program/degree has many students that DO attend classes but that's fine too if he chooses NOT to get vaccinated and NOT to go to classes. He just had to apply for an exemption of the vaccination rule that applies to on campus classmates in his program and wait for 2-4 weeks for it to be approved. It would likely have been approved.
3. He messed up, not the school. He did NOT apply for his exemption/waiver when he was told clearly that he needed to. This is not a university locking out unvaccinated students from participating virtually, its a university enforcing well communicated protocol.
4. If this University had required transcripts from another school or high school by a certain date and he failed to send them but tried to take online courses that required that..........what do you think they would have done?
Same thing. He wanted to get treated special but wasn't willing to follow the rules to get special treatment. It's on him.
5. He says "I'll probably have to transfer to another university" Either he is really smart because he got FOX and the Post to believe that or he is really dumb because he neglected to apply for his waiver at this school and still refused to wait a few weeks now to get it..........and instead, is going to have to go thru the very tedious process of applying to a new college, getting accepted and will still have to follow the rules at the next college which is 100 times more work than if he just filled out some papers asking for a vaccination waiver.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the Post article: "Rutgers spokeswoman Dory Devlin insisted that the university has “provided comprehensive information and direction to students to meet vaccine requirements through several communications channels.”
She noted that Rutgers’ policy differentiates between a “fully online degree-granting program” and “classes that are fully remote” but part of a course where other students are on campus, as in Hollar’s case.
Devlin told the site that staff “continue to work” helping students apply for waiver requests for medical or religious reasons — while conceding they “should expect a two-to four-week turnaround, during which time they will not have access to university systems.”
“Once it is processed and verified, students are allowed access to university systems,” she said."
You might have been following this story too:
Indianapolis Star
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/students-supreme-court-college-vaccine-mandate
metmike: In case you weren't following, the lawyer and students lost their case in every court with no chance of winning because its such a no brainer decision. Of course a university is going to be allowed to set health rules for students regarding a killer disease and the safe and simple protective process of getting vaccinated. Of course they would.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/supreme-court-indiana-university-covid-vaccine-mandate.html
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court allowed Indiana University on Thursday to require students to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.
Eight students had sued the university, saying the requirement violated their constitutional rights to “bodily integrity, autonomy and medical choice.” But they conceded that exemptions to the requirement — for religious, ethical and medical reasons — “virtually guaranteed” that anyone who sought an exemption would be granted one.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the federal appeals court in question, turned down the students’ request for emergency relief without comment, which is the court’s custom in ruling on emergency applications. She acted on her own, without referring the application to the full court, and she did not ask the university for a response. Both of those moves were indications that the application was not on solid legal footing.
The students were represented by James Bopp Jr., a prominent conservative lawyer who has been involved in many significant lawsuits, including the Citizens United campaign finance case. He argued that the university’s vaccine requirement was putting his clients at risk.
“The known and unknown risks associated with Covid vaccines, particularly in those under 30, outweigh the risks to that population from the disease itself,” Mr. Bopp told the justices. “Protection of others does not relieve our society from the central canon of medical ethics requiring voluntary and informed consent.”
The ruling capped a string of setbacks for the students in the case, which was the first to reach the Supreme Court concerning the coronavirus in the context of an educational institution. The court has previously ruled on many emergency applications arising from the government’s response to the virus in other settings, including houses of worship and prisons.
A trial judge had refused to block the university’s requirement, writing that the Constitution “permits Indiana University to pursue a reasonable and due process of vaccination in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty and staff.”
A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, declined to issue an injunction while the students’ appeal moved forward.
“Each university may decide what is necessary to keep other students safe in a congregate setting,” Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote for the appeals court. “Health exams and vaccinations against other diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, varicella, meningitis, influenza and more) are common requirements of higher education. Vaccination protects not only the vaccinated persons but also those who come in contact with them, and at a university close contact is inevitable.”
Judge Easterbrook, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Ronald Reagan, relied on a 1905 Supreme Court decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which ruled that states may require all members of the public to be vaccinated against smallpox or pay a fine.
mcfarm,
You have kids right?
Unless they were home schooled, they all had to be vaccinated like mine were to go to school in Indiana. Look at all the vaccinations they had to take below.
INDIANA 2021-2022 Required and Recommended School Immunizations
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx
It's interesting that the states which DON'T allow any religious and philisophical exemptions are both red and blue.
The thing that has garnered the most traction in the case of anti COVID vaxxers is the fear factor being used because its new and people don't understand it.
The fake news/false narratives: "gene therapy" or "it changes your DNA" or "we don't know how it might affect us in 2-3 years" narratives.
None of it true and there's no legit medical reason to think there would be side affects in years.
But we do know with 100% certainty that COVID has killed over half a million people and many of those that lived DO have these longer term/lingering negative health consequences:
COVID long term damage
15 responses |
Started by metmike - Aug. 30, 2021, 12:34 p.m.
This is how the vaccine works
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/73449/#73590
This is what it's doing to people going to the same dis/misinformation sites.
Red states still getting killed(literally)
Started by metmike - Aug. 30, 2021, 4:48 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/74423/
its my understanding they told him he would miss 2 to 4 weeks of the semester. If he misses tha t much while they dilly dally and decide he is really 70 miles away does he not miss the entire semester...or kicked pout by another name? Why would you defend this bull crap esp after that travesty of a speech last nite. You think states rights do not apply while Biden is in office, I got the feeling we he has kicked a bear he is going to wish he hadn't.
Missing 2-4 weeks is correct mcfarm, as was indicated above.
Could the school have made an exception and allowed him to stay enrolled while he waited for his vaccine waiver paper work to be processed?
Sure, but it appears that he never even filed for a waiver, even to this day so his position is totally disingenuous.
He messed up by not filing for the waiver/exemption as the procedure/protocol clearly called for. It was written out clearly and should have been well known by all non vaccinated students.
Then, when the school took the actions that they stated they would if he did not file for the waiver............locked him out, he complained that this was unfair.
Then, the school just repeated what its been saying all along.........
Dude, file for your waiver like we've been advising you to do and we'll grant it to you but it takes 2-4 weeks to process and be approved.
Instead of filing for the waiver, a very simple process, he goes to FOX news and tells them he will need to transfer to another school.
1. So either he's a very bright guy that used FOX news to make the college look bad for a policy that he doesn't like (filing for a simple waiver)..............at the expense of hurting his own academic career but getting national attention OR
2. He's a stubborn, procrastinating dumb arse that doesn't like rules and wants to stir up trouble........at the expense of hurting his own academic career but to get national attention.
I vote for #1 above with high confidence. Procrastinating dumb arse's are not sharp enough to contact FOX news and provide a very misleading narrative, that includes needing to transfer to another school bs.
I say this all could of been settled in a 5 minute phone call but the libs running Rutgers wanted an extended fight that made no sense....any way you look at it he was not a threat and they new he was not.
"I say this all could of been settled in a 5 minute phone call but the libs running Rutgers wanted an extended fight that made no sense"
I guess you didn't read the previous posts about why it happened.
He was told well before the school year began that he had to file for the waiver to get special treatment just like every other student going to Rutgers that was not vaccinated but wanted to get an excemption from the vaccination rule.
After he raised a fuss and drew attention to himself, he was told again that this was all he needed to do...file the papers and then allow 2-4 weeks for processing and he would be good to go.
Instead, he refused to comply with the rules. He contacted FOX news and told them that he would need to transfer to another school.............total bs.
if that is all true the kid just compounded things....but if he were serious about school and I think I read he was a senior I would imagine he was quite serious....something does not smell right. And why would this even be part of the conversation? "He was told he had to be vaccinated even thought he would not be attending live classes"....that makes no sense at all
"He was told he had to be vaccinated even thought he would not be attending live classes"....that makes no sense at all"
I agree, this is very odd.
This is what he was told mcfarm:
https://nypost.com/2021/09/07/rutgers-bars-unvaccinated-student-from-attending-virtual-classes/
"Devlin told the site that staff “continue to work” helping students apply for waiver requests for medical or religious reasons — while conceding they “should expect a two-to four-week turnaround, during which time they will not have access to university systems.”
“Once it is processed and verified, students are allowed access to university systems,” she said."
metmike: Does this student qualify for an exemption/waiver? I'm not sure. Did he apply for one before the semester started?
No
Did he apply for it after he was locked out for not applying for it?
No.
Did he indicate at any point that he was going to apply for it in the story?
No.
So we can't know if he would have been given a waiver by Rutgers because he never applied for one as Rutgers advised him to.
After the story broke, maybe he finally decided to apply for a waiver. I would bet that if they let him back in, after he followed the proper procedure, the news outlets with the stories would not tell us.
If he had applied and been denied, then this is a TOTALLY different deal.