Before populating the halls of on-campus housing with first-year students, the University of Oregon prepared a long list of actions the university has taken and expects individuals to take to prevent and minimize the spread of COVID-19 on campus. However, other universities have done the same before their own reopenings, and still many of them had to send students home after the coronavirus rapidly spread throughout the campus community. It seems all but certain that students will break social distancing regulations and spread COVID-19 at UO. The question, then, is what should the consequences be for the students who do?
Borchardt: Violation of COVID-19 rules is cause for immediate suspension
I don’t believe immediate expulsion is the answer if a student breaks the rules. Because it’s all but certain that students will violate social distancing guidelines, immediate expulsion could lead to a mass exodus. Instead, the school should suspend first-time offenders. The suspension should be accompanied by a 14-day quarantine in one of the university’s quarantine dorms. This should be enough to show students how important it is to take health and safety guidelines seriously.
If the problem behavior persists, the student should be expelled. However, I believe that once the university expels these students, UO should refund their tuition. It’s often easy to assume that those who break the rules are those that can afford the consequences, but that simply is not true. Freshmen are going to make mistakes. Rules will be broken that will lead to severe consequences, but suspension and expulsion are consequences enough. The virus has led to many folks losing their jobs and struggling to make money to support their families.
Furthermore, retaining a student’s tuition isn’t just a consequence for the student, as many students’ tuitions are paid by their family members. It’s not their fault if their child is breaking the rules. They are no longer in a position to be looking over their shoulder 24/7 because they’re young adults responsible for their own actions. Their families don’t deserve to pay for violations they didn’t commit. Financial stability is a hard thing to come by, particularly in a pandemic, and it would be unfair to keep the money that the student’s family might desperately need back.
Aghel: We cannot afford a test run; a student’s first strike could be deadly
Northeastern University expelled 11 students in early September for gathering in defiance of university and state social distancing regulations. Many people were outraged with the decision, arguing that retaining the students’ tuition after expulsion was a step too far. Such outrage, though, fails to contextualize the dangers that gathering in large groups poses. One hangout could lead to a devastating spread that could lead to deaths of students, faculty and their families. COVID-19, then, should not be treated differently than reckless endangerment; one reckless night can indirectly lead to the death of another.
To put it into context, being punished for reckless endangerment, due to the valuation of life at $10 million, is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Being expelled from UO and being charged tuition is minuscule in comparison. But that threat of educational and monetary punishment, no matter how small, is precisely what is necessary to instill the exact danger of a student’s risk.
Some suggest suspension before expulsion, ignoring the fact that the coronavirus does not give people a test run. The first infraction can kill. If the university is committed to curbing deaths, then their punishment must send the same message as their words. It is not radical to suggest that students abide by the rules of the university they choose to attend. If a student ignores them, they didn’t deserve a spot at the university in the first place.
