The viewpoint “Implement Sensible COVID Policies” and the installment of “Eyeing the Administration” titled “Recognize Vaccine Efficacy, Rethink COVID Protocols” are both incorrect in their assertions that Georgetown University’s spring virtual instruction policies were improper or unwarranted. They ignore Georgetown’s unique context for implementing these rules and downplay Georgetown’s obligation to its most vulnerable community members.
“Eyeing the Administration” references Brown University in a weak attempt to discredit Georgetown’s decision. However, Georgetown was not anomalous when compared to its peer institutions in Washington, D.C. Most universities in the area adopted similar policies for virtual instruction, setting their in-person return dates just somewhat after their booster dose deadlines.
The viewpoint criticizes — among other things — the policies that govern Lauinger Library. However, speaking from my own experience as a “Lau 2” regular, Lauinger Library was one of the worst areas on campus for mask mandate compliance. Students used food and beverages as excuses for removing their masks but not putting them back on, defying the “actively eating and drinking” provision of the mask mandate. If students cannot follow basic masking rules, the university is within its rights to impose tougher restrictions in the name of public health.
Both articles also ignore the difficulties Georgetown’s public health team is facing. Georgetown University COVID Care Navigators and D.C.’s Department of Health (D.C. Health) COVID-19 team have struggled to communicate health information to affected students because they are inundated with cases to contact trace. Not to mention, some students have been abusive to Care Navigators and appear to have actively sabotaged the isolation process. Moving to virtual instruction was needed to avert an even greater inundation of exposures and shortage of isolation rooms and healthcare resources.
Moreover, Georgetown has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable community members, especially amid the one of the most contagious variants of the virus to date. Moving to virtual instruction during the peak weeks of the omicron variant was a reasonable decision that ensured all of our community members, including immunocompromised students and students with risk factors, were protected. Both pieces downplay this duty.
Moving to online instruction has been far from ideal. However, the current circumstances necessitated it to ward off a highly contagious variant that could have ravaged our campus community. I applaud Georgetown’s continued efforts to reduce COVID-19 transmission and protect community health and well-being.
Eric Bazail-Eimil is a junior in the School of Foreign Service
Anna Simmons • Feb 2, 2022 at 10:26 pm
The fact that you were present at the sporting event that other people have referenced in the comments but advocated for Georgetown to keep students out of in-person classes is absolutely disgusting. Students are paying tens of thousands of dollars this semester to study here, and Georgetown is taking advantage of them. You are obviously so stupid to think that in-person classes are “unsafe”, yet you attend sporting events with likely thousands of people enclosed in a space. You are disgusting and people like you are truly the greatest threat our country faces to this day.
Yena N. • Jan 29, 2022 at 1:33 pm
You’re justified in your criticism of Lau 2 regulars who take advantage of the “actively eating and drinking policy.” However, outright prohibiting eating and drinking–especially when it’s water–is overly and unfairly excessive, and is in fact unhealthy for the busy students who need to spend long periods of time inside, especially when they are the only ones in their area. It’s not okay to spend hours without drinking water once, and this policy is mandating something that’s at best unhealthy and ill-advised and at worst dangerous. No one’s going to get covid from someone taking a sip of water every half hour (lowering their mask for what, fifteen seconds?) especially when there’s no one within six feet and we’re all vaccinated and boosted.
Eric Bazail-Eimil • Jan 31, 2022 at 3:40 pm
Hi Yena,
Your response is completely valid here! Letters are edited for conciseness so some nuances and qualifications were stricken for the sake of the word count. I was more trying to rebut the idea that any and all restrictions in Lau were baseless and not sensible at this point (the original piece was downplaying the context saying it was “a slippery slope” when it was absolutely a real and pernicious problem). I absolutely concede the current prohibition on drinking is excessive and this wasn’t quite the right solution to the problem, but certainly, other measures are valid and understandable. Thank goodness for comment sections where we can parse this out!
Thanks for reading and offering a response!
Hoya Saxa • Jan 28, 2022 at 8:01 am
If I’m not mistaken, this author was at the packed Georgetown-Villanova basketball game on behalf of GU Politics. Seems a bit hypocritical that the author would support depriving students of in-person learning while simultaneously attending an event with exponentially greater risk of Covid transmission.
Eric Bazail-Eimil • Jan 29, 2022 at 2:40 pm
Hi! Author of the piece here.
Responding mainly to offer a correction: I did attend the Villanova game, though not on behalf of GUPolitics or any campus institute/department that I am affiliated with.
Also want to note that my individual behavior, made in the context of my own individual health factors and risk factors, can’t be conflated with my views on what is the best course of action for a University to take when considering the needs of a larger community of people with a myriad of other individual health issues. I had already recovered from COVID-19 when I went to that game, meaning that my chances of reinfection were going to be near non-existent. My chances of exposing others were also non-existent, seeing as though I had already cleared the contagious phase by a long time and had no more symptoms. Not to mention, I strictly follow masking rules when I attend large events like basketball games and study in Lauinger Library, and since the CDC updated guidance, I have used KN95 masks and other high-quality masks over traditional surgical masks and cloth masks in public spaces. Given my own individual factors, going to the game was safe for me personally and I made that decision for myself and not for anyone else.
Georgetown’s decision on virtual learning has to take into account all people, including immunocompromised and at-risk students, faculty, and staff members and its potential impact on the health of the greater community. Unlike attending a basketball game, going to class isn’t voluntary if you’d like to graduate. Given conditions during much of the Omicron surge, it was unsafe for a sizeable number of students, faculty, and staff to teach and work in person during the month of January. The University’s decisions have implications on our immediate community and our neighbors. As an urban university located in what was for a long time the nation’s Omicron epicenter, we were right to adopt virtual learning for the beginning of the semester. It was the responsible decision to protect everyone in our community, especially within the context of our resources and care capacity.
Hope this helps! Thanks for reading and responding to the piece.