Hacker News Reader

Comment by LurkingPenguin | Hacker News Reader

> The University of Georgia does not require that face masks be worn inside campus facilities. But Bernstein knew that two students who were out on the first day of class had tested positive for the coronavirus, so he imposed his own mandate inside the classroom, the Red & Blue reported.

It sounds like the professor should have resigned before ever stepping foot in the classroom. I mean, if the university has decided that masks are not required indoors, it's not the professor's place to make a rule to the contrary for his classroom.

View on HN

He told the students what the rules were for his class, and why his health reasons dictated a more stringent policy for the class than was standard for the University. I see no problems with that. If the students didn’t like his policies, then they could have gone elsewhere.

I think the real concern here should be the harm done to the other students, both by the one student who couldn’t be bothered to put on a mask and the fact that they have now lost their professor.

Did the university give him permission to dictate a more stringent policy for his classroom? If you are elderly and have pre-existing conditions, you can choose not to work in an environment where you are around large numbers of people and masks are not required.

Ostensibly, he (and probably other staff) had voiced their concerns to the university and the university still decided not to require masks. One might disagree with that decision, but that doesn't give people who disagree with it the right to dictate their own rules.

Finally, it's pretty clear that the professor was already looking for a way out and found a trigger he could pull:

> "I felt some relief as I had been getting more concerned as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded in recent weeks."

I think he was asking for his students to empathise with his needs based on his pre-existing health condition.

He was asking them to make a reciprocal gesture of respect.

Deliberately wearing a mask as to render it ineffective in the circumstance is deeply disrespectful.

It’s a pity one student ruined it for the whole class, but upon reflection maybe a more important lesson will be learned by all.

> upon reflection maybe a more important lesson will be learned by all.

Probably all except that particular student.

I don't think changing professors is as easy as changing hairdressers. Let's be honest - both parties had a moral argument. What the professor asked for was a courtesy, and courtesies are by definition not mandatory.

The student was obviously a jerk, but still within her rights. It was simply a failed negotiation. And it could have depended on many factors we don't know. Since wearing a mask was an elective act, many other factors could have played a role. Maybe the student was just an entitled brat. Maybe the professor was just not very good. Maybe he had refused in the past to accomodate students in other ways. We don't know. But what we know is not enough to make definite pronouncements either way.

Professors make decisions that are stricter than what their university allows, and there should be no problem if they do. Two examples:

1. Universities usually have no or minimal dress-codes, but professors in lab courses or on field trips will have mandatory dress codes for safety or cultural reasons.

2. My university has mandatory minimum attendance for every in-person course, with 15 minute leeway allowed. But lots of profs enforce a 0 min or 5 min leeway.

I am sure others can add more examples.

It seems like you value the non-decision of university bureaucrats over the professors who actually do the work.

If the university required masks indoors and there was a professor who decided to allow students not to wear them in his classroom, would that be acceptable?

No, but that’s not what happened here.

Why "no"? What logic or principle is your position based on?

Based on the obvious principle that forcing someone to take what they consider too many precautions is radically different from forcing them to take not enough precautions. The former leads to annoyance and the latter leads to death. I'm so exhausted with the trolls who pretend they can't fathom the difference. At least learn how to make an argument that makes some kind of logical sense. Why am I even responding to this.

> Based on the obvious principle that forcing someone to take what they consider too many precautions is radically different from forcing them to take not enough precautions.

What if the professor demanded his students wear a specific kind of mask, like an N95? What if he required his students to take rapid tests before class? Where do you draw the line?

If an elderly person with comorbidities -- the highest risk individual in this pandemic by far -- wants to work in an environment where he will be exposed to many other people, which is inherently risky regardless of vaccination and masking (because neither offers 100% protection), he should find an employer whose rules are satisfactory to him, not impose rules that are contrary to his employer's.

I might agree if you were talking about a worker at a restaurant requesting patrons take more precautions than the restaurant's ownership required. But a tenured professor is not simply an employee. His status is more like an airline captain while in control of a plane. It's his classroom and he can require them to do pretty much anything he wants.

Classism at its finest. 88 year-old diabetic tenured university professor can demand whatever he wants but a poor, overweight waitress who lives with and cares for an immunocompromised relative can't.

No, classism would be: The waitress should just quit or be fired if she doesn't feel safe at her job.

Just stop.

If he were teaching chemistry and the girl refused to wear gloves, he could have thrown her out. He should have thrown her out anyway. As it was, what she was doing was personally putting him in danger. Of course he has every right to demand whatever he wants in his classroom.

> If he were teaching chemistry and the girl refused to wear gloves, he could have thrown her out.

You are required to wear gloves in a chemistry class for your own protection, and such a requirement isn't contrary to school policy.

> As it was, what she was doing was personally putting him in danger.

No, he was putting himself in danger by choosing to be in an environment where he was exposed to lots of other people, knowing full well that he is at the highest risk of severe illness or death from COVID because he's elderly and has comorbidities.

> Of course he has every right to demand whatever he wants in his classroom.

Really? So he could ask students to segregate themselves into seating areas by, say, race or religion? Vaccination status?

Your mental gymnastics should be studied.

It would be ok to require gloves for her own protection, which is outside and in addition to school policy, but it’s not ok to require a mask which protects everyone and is also outside of and in addition to school policy? That’s your argument?

Strong disagree. There’s very little reason college classes even need to meet in person. If they do, it would be very easy to protect the lecturer. A plexiglass divider is all that’s needed. A university that doesn’t provide that is essentially either being negligent to save a few bucks, unjustifiable given their massive revenues, or willfully trying to push out a tenured professor. I hope he sues big and wins. Universities have long outlived their usefulness. They’re just corporations that exist to provide the elite with sinecure jobs and nurture endowments that mostly sit idle.

That's a totally different argument. He could have asked for the ability to teach online, or for specific in-class accommodations, but instead he decided to go into the classroom and predictably, when a student didn't go along with his contrary-to-school-policy demand, he used it as a way to resign with a bang.

Also, there's no real evidence that plexiglass is effective.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-08/fortunes-...

From someone who don't think the current rules are enough, plexiglass probably doesn't help. It's not just spit, it's airborne, like cigarette smoke. Imagine being in a room with a smoker, would 6ft, cloth masks or plexiglass stop you from noticing the smell of cigarettes?

It could. There used to be smoking sections in airports. The barriers, typically glass but they could easily be made of plexiglass, did in fact keep the smoke inside the smoking section. This would not be a great expense. Add some cheap mics and speakers; problem solved.

Agreed, the professor’s conflict was with university policy that he agreed to follow per his employment. He can’t supersede rules made beyond his position. He has a job to teach in that classroom. At least, he used to.

Nah. This guy was awesome. Of course he can supersede rules beyond his position. That’s “free speech” and tenure, and exactly what Universities have traditionally been about. He’s making a stand based on what he thinks is right. The students are free to do the same, of course, with all the repercussions that entail. In this case, the repercussion was obvious. Don’t play chicken with someone who has nothing to lose.

I don't think the student was playing chicken here. She probably wanted to attend the class she paid to attend subject to the policies she agreed to when she enrolled, pass her exams, and get an A.

So? I've had professors ask for things I thought were ridiculous, walked out of the class and changed to a different one. Tough titty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com