Freshman View: The Vax Mandate

Freshman View is a weekly column in which Freshmen at the College answer questions posed by Upperclassmen and Alumni. This week, 24s address the College’s vaccine mandate for students returning next school year:

The College has announced that vaccines will be required for students this fall. Is this ethical? Given this requirement are there certain changes to campus life (e.g. return to full in person classes, full capacity in dorms, removal of mask requirements, etc.) that are now incumbent upon the College to make?

Have questions you want answered? Send them to dartrevieweditor@gmail.com.

*Some names have been changed.

I have no real problem with Dartmouth requiring COVID vaccinations. After all, as students, we’re already required to be immunized against a host of other diseases for which safe and effective vaccines exist, including diphtheria, polio, and rubella. Personally, I have never heard any serious opposition to the polio vaccine being a requirement for coming to campus. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about the details of the COVID policies the College has implemented over the past year – and I’ll be the first to disagree with quite a few of them – but a vaccine mandate is a pretty reasonable request on the College’s part, with precedent to back it up.

At the same time, if the College knows that every student on campus will be immunized when we return for the fall, then the administration has an absolute responsibility to remove all COVID-related restrictions. No more capacity limits, no more gathering restrictions, no more online classes, and no more removal from campus for “endangering the safety of the community.” Even now, but especially when the entire student body is immunized, there is no reason to say that vaccinated students cannot safely gather or take an in-person class. To do so would be anti-science, which is something I’m sure our administration wouldn’t want to be accused of.

With a fully vaccinated student body, the exigency for these extraordinary measures disappears. Whether you agreed with them in the first place, keeping COVID-19 measures when they are no longer needed makes the College’s thought process seem less “desperate times, desperate measures,” more “never let a crisis go to waste.”

— Connor Boehm

Requiring vaccinations is nothing new. The College requires vaccinations for all incoming undergraduates, and they have reasonably solid ethical grounds to do so. The only difference with COVID vaccines would be their emergency use authorization (EUA). While there doesn’t seem to be an immediate risk from taking any of the approved vaccines, requiring vaccinations at this point seems premature. For example, Texas A&M and Virginia Tech said they could not mandate vaccinations because they are under EUAs. Dartmouth should follow that line of thought and pause on vaccine requirements until the FDA gives formal authorization, which, while unlikely, could happen before the fall term begins.

That being said, I feel quite a large number of people will voluntarily choose to be vaccinated; I indeed leaped at the first chance I got because I’m convinced of its efficacy and safety. Obviously, the risk of infection persists, particularly with new variants. To compound the risk, the long-term effects of COVID infections are still very much unknown, meaning testing and close monitoring should continue. If herd immunity of 70-85% vaccination rate can be achieved voluntarily, certain restrictions like outdoors mask-wearing and social distancing requirements should be relaxed, and in-person classes should resume at near-total capacity. 

— Ian Kim

It comes as no surprise to me that the College will be requiring vaccines for on-campus enrollment in the fall. The Administration’s ability to strip me of my personal freedoms may have surprised me back in September 2020, but at this point I am resigned to it. I see none of the regulations as preventative health measures, but rather a cheap shot at saving Dartmouth’s reputation. With concern to vaccines, I have no issue with a recommendation, but a mandate breeches an ethical barrier. The vaccine secures one’s own health, not that of others. Why else would we be told to continue masking post-vax? Let’s assume that the vaccine nullified my ability to spread the virus. It would be reasonable to mandate that procedure. It would keep myself and, importantly, others safe. But this is not how the vaccine works. It merely generates antibodies.

If the Administration forces my hand, as I’m sure they will, they must recognize that they forfeit all pretext for Covid restrictions. I would like to see an end to the police state on campus, but, as I have experienced for three terms, no statistic ever seems to satisfy the higher ups. Our patience and compliance with the College’s draconian measures have not been rewarded, and it will soon pose consequences to student welfare. Students have forgone their typical life for more than a year now in compliance with the College’s standards. We have seen the pernicious effects that this yields on mental health. I urge the Administration to take one of two paths. Either mandate a vaccine and end the restrictions, or let us have our own choice and continue with your impossibly high health standards.

— David Quinn*

A COVID vaccine mandate is ethical—but only if the College substantially changes its guidelines for campus life. The College already requires several vaccines prior to matriculation, such as the measles, polio, and hepatitis B vaccines. Considering the contagious nature of COVID as well as the risk to older-aged folks, adding the requirement of a COVID vaccine is entirely reasonable. However, the science also shows that the vaccines are extremely effective at preventing the spread of COVID. So what  scientific explanation will there be for wearing masks when nearly everyone in the Dartmouth community is vaccinated in the fall? Similarly, why should there still be any restrictions on dorm capacity or in-person classes? If the College wants to require the COVID vaccine for all students, then they should be prepared to allow a full return to normal, pre-COVID campus life. Maintaining the current restrictions or only making small changes would be unscientific and unethical.

— Jeffery Lam

Before I begin this piece, it feels necessary to establish my belief in vaccination. However, as someone with antibodies and immunity, it seems silly to waste my time with the various vials of vaccine brewed by whatever giant biopharmaceutical companies the government subsidizes. Simply because an arbitrary entity like Dear Old Dartmouth determines it necessary for everyone’s health and safety is no reason to accept mandatory vaccination without considering the individual’s plight. In requiring the vaccine to be mandatory, the College takes its authority and shoots it up your arm. No matter how you color it, the mechanics of the act speak for themselves.

I have always despised the word mandatory. Microchips and sterility scares aside, if any institution endorses any project or product, it is always a good idea to look under the warning-label for the asterisks. If that same government product becomes mandatory to take, there is a certainty someone is profiting immensely somewhere off-shore.  

By passively resisting suggestions to take a demonstrably (at least for me) unnecessary vaccine—a vaccine which has been proven to give some people horrid side-effects—I have somehow wound up in the wrong camp. In no way should the College take it upon herself to enforce a medical procedure on her students. It would be tragic if everyone who got vaccinated became mindless consumer zombies mindlessly obeying authority simply because it exerts power over them….

— Brendan Loftus

Imposing a COVID-19 vaccine requirement upon students is overstepping the authority of a private institution such as the College. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one that should not restrict a student’s ability to be involved in on-campus activities. Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence that the vaccine will prevent vaccinated people from spreading the virus. Yes, numerous trials have proven the effectiveness of the vaccine in limiting the dangers presented by COVID-19, but for students of the College, our innate immunity can be relied on just as much as the vaccine. The logical and ethical basis of the vaccine requirement is nonexistent outside of maintaining the College’s all-important image. That being said, the precedent for this requirement was set by the requirement to submit an immunization record of numerous vaccines as part of the enrollment process. Thus, the announcement by the College to only allow vaccinated students back to campus in the fall was expected. 

Unfortunately for the Administration, this vaccine requirement will be a double-edged sword. It will force the Administration to relax its guidelines. The excuse of COVID-19 will no longer be acceptable for the lack of in-person classes and moderate gatherings in dorms. The harsh mask mandate will also have to be reconsidered come fall term. This vaccine requirement might promote the image of the College, but also obliges the Administration to remove the COVID-19 guidelines that it has so happily enforced until now.

— Nicholas Hepburn