As college students around the country awaited an announcement from their school’s leadership regarding the decision for the Fall 2020 semester, people everywhere were asking a similar logistical question: what do I think is the best solution for education during a pandemic? Responses ranged from going fully remote (eventually, the path that Smith decided to take) to bringing students back at full capacity. In a time of panic, people had to ask themselves significant questions: do I agree with my college’s decision? Does it go against the values that I stand for which justify the quarantine? Does herd immunity work? At the end of the day, many politically active students were left scratching their heads at the lack of strong federal guidance for our beloved institutions. The lack of federal leadership concerning COVID-19 has raised a controversial question for the schools: which voices matter during the decision process — those of the students and faculty, or of the administration and donors?
Importantly, this concept presents itself differently for every school regardless of education level. For example, K-12 public institutions work using a different decision process than private institutions. Lisa Williams ‘01 said that, from her perspective on the school board in Iowa City, by having elected members of the community guide the process of returning the district to classes, the lives of the community’s children are prioritized: “Our north star is health and safety. And while we want to get back to school, if we can’t get back to school in a healthy and safe way, we shouldn’t be back in person yet.”
However, colleges and universities face a range of problems different from these public K-12 institutions, and thus do not systematically go through a similar community-based decision making process. Instead, with a lack of universal guidance, these private institutions are free to draw their own judgement — with little need for input from their surrounding community and student body. Professor Rosetta Cohen from the Smith Education Department said: “Ideally, the government, in consultation with the CDC and the best scientific minds, should have put out clear guidelines for how to proceed — promoting testing, making PPE widely available, mandating other protective measures, and making decisions about the opening of schools based on rates of infection in particular communities.” Some colleges, like Smith, used science as their guide and were in a privileged enough position to go fully remote. Other colleges and universities, however, are not as lucky.
An analysis published by Professor Galloway, a marketing professor at New York University, examined the likelihood of financial survival through the pandemic for 436 colleges and universities. While all universities will feel the impacts of the pandemic, some are more vulnerable than others. By categorizing colleges and universities into four groups, “Thrive”, “Survive”, “Struggle” and “Perish”, Professor Galloway demonstrates the importance for some universities to bring students back to campus purely because of the financial threat that fully-remote learning presents. The “Thrive” and “Survive” categories consist of institutions that appear stable enough to survive the pandemic; luckily, Smith College is ranked in the “Survive” Category. On the other hand, “Struggle” and “Perish” schools demonstrate a significant risk of having to close their doors. These institutions face essentially life and death decisions, and thus have taken the risk of returning to in-person learning in order to maintain a somewhat stable income.
It is important to recognize the difficult economic position that online college presents to many universities, but this must not blind the country to the risk that in-person learning imposes on students and staff. While it would be naive to disregard this economic reality, COVID-19 is highlighting an ugly truth of American society — that the financial health of institutions often outweighs the health of its citizens in decision making. From this perspective, it may appear obvious that fully-remote learning is the best way to safely stop the spread of COVID-19.
Without a strong federal government response to the pandemic, these decisions come down solely to an institution’s financial privilege. Even for the “Thrive” and “Survive” categories of Professor Galloway’s study, regardless of the science that justifies fully-remote learning, it is important to note that there will always be individuals who do not have many of the privileges that online learning requires. So what is the solution, and why are so many professionals highly conflicted on what to do? Like most aspects to American life in the 21st century, it comes down to politics and political identity. With the left and the right no closer to coming to a significant resolution to the pandemic, it is left up to institutions to make their own political judgements and take their own risks — and yet the burden is inherently placed upon the individual students.
So, what is the best solution for resuming higher education amid a pandemic? While there is a loud chorus of genuine and justified disappointment in the face of fully-remote education, there are common values shared by most Smithies and most college students: science and equality. These principles must be held tight to stop the spread of COVID-19 while successfully advancing the college journey for all of us.
