Learn from Anywhere is a Marketing Ploy Used as a Post-Hoc Justification for a Very Poor Public Health Decision

As soon as the marketing for the BU's new Learn from Anywhere (LfA) system came out, it was already apparent to me that this was simply a post-hoc justification for a decision that had already been made.

The decision to offer hybrid classes, made before even considering the implications and ramifications (including the cost and use of resources) of implementing in-person classes this fall, was clearly made first, with the LfA propaganda coming second in an attempt to justify what was obviously a premature and irresponsible public health decision.

How irresponsible was this decision?

It was made in mid-April, while the COVID-19 pandemic was absolutely raging in Massachusetts and had not even reached its peak. It was made at a time of catastrophic illness, loss-of-life, patient and family suffering, and extreme uncertainty. It was made at a time when it was not clear whether the pandemic would still be raging in the fall, whether it would subside, or whether it might subside in the summer or return as a second surge in the fall.

From any public health perspective, this was clearly an irresponsible decision. You can't decide in the middle of a pandemic that four months from now, you are going to open up your classrooms, regardless. But that's exactly what the LfA model means. It means that a decision was made to go with hybrid classes and some sort of justification was needed. Enter LfA: a marketing scheme disguised as a pubic health plan.

The safety and health of the full community--students, staff, and faculty--is not the first and foremost priority. If that were the case, then it would be a no-brainer to do what the two other schools of public health in Boston announced very early that they were doing: offering online-only education, the safest option available to protect the health of their communities. Instead, the priority, first and foremost, for BU was financial. Hence the premature decision that we would go hybrid while our colleagues in public health in Boston were reassuring their communities that they would have online classes and could be reassured that protecting their health truly was the paramount concern. Not so at BU.

As early as April 28, the School of Public Health had apparently sent letters to every returning and incoming prospective student announcing the decision: "We have communicated with all incoming and continuing students to let them know that we are preparing for them with those options. Letters sent to the incoming students have been shared with the core instructors and letters sent to continuing students have been shared with program directors so they are ready for any questions that might arise. Our goal, through offering in-person education coupled with real time hybrid digital education is to make sure that all of our students can enroll and proceed as planned."

To translate this: Our goal, through offering in-person education coupled with real time hybrid digital education, is to make sure that all of our accepted student will enroll and proceed with paying their tuition fees as planned. To facilitate this, we've announced--during the peak of a surging pandemic that is causing catastrophic illness and death in our state--that we will open up for business in September, regardless of what COVID-19 has in store for us. And don't worry - if you are vulnerable, have health conditions or are concerned about health risks - we'll give you an online option. But we need to maximize enrollment among students who are less concerned about the risk and might prefer to attend classes in person.

The truth is that what is being called "Learn from Anywhere" is not a pedagogical or didactic advance. Because this is not really a true hybrid system. In a true hybrid system, different modes of teaching are offered for different students because of differences in situational factors that make it more convenient for some to attend in person and preferable for others to attend in person. The hybrid system was not designed as a way to be able to offer education in an environment that is unsafe for many students (i.e., those with preexisting conditions) and safe for others.

When the School said about the hybrid system: "This will ensure that any students who cannot join us in class in person for any particular reason will still be able to engage in classes," what it meant was that this will ensure that students with preexisting conditions who cannot join us for health reasons will still be able to engage in class. Why else would a student not be able to join us in class?

In fact, the only reasons why a student might not be able to join us in class are all related to vulnerability: health vulnerability, anxiety about the risks of exposure to COVID-19 in the classroom, concerns about family members or household members who my be at risk, concerns about people for whom a student might be a caretaker.

I emphasize this in order to point out that not only was the decision to hold hybrid classes irresponsible from a public health perspective, but it also goes against the very social justice principles that the School prides itself upon.

One of the first things you'll notice if you check out the web page for LfA is the statement: "Our top priority, at all times, is to provide a safe and healthy work environment for BU faculty, staff, and students." If that were the top priority, then we, like the public health programs at Tufts and Harvard, would be holding classes online this fall, providing the safest possible environment for students to learn.

Contrast BUSPH's approach with that of Harvard, which notified its SPH community in June:

"The unrest of the past days has reminded us of the long road toward social justice and has increased our distress in an already heartbreaking new reality. But each of you, like me, is also thinking about how our School will move forward during the pandemic and I did not want to delay in communicating our plans for the fall. We all wish that the School’s activities were not significantly impacted by COVID-19, but they continue to be and I’m writing now to let you know that we have made the decision to hold courses online during the fall semester (Fall1 and Fall2).

We are carefully following the COVID-19 trends and the decisions that are being made locally, nationally, and globally. It won’t surprise you that, even with the plans being made for reopening cities and businesses, much remains uncertain. Indeed, the insight and expertise of our own epidemiology, infectious disease, and environmental health experts have helped to remind us that we cannot know what the state of the world will be several months from now.

What is clear is that the safety of the Harvard Chan School community is paramount, that we cannot ensure a safe return to in-person instruction in a way that would facilitate learning, and that, when the right time comes, we will bring our students and instructors together back on campus in carefully planned phases. Our students—U.S. and international—must be able to continue their education without fear for their health, and many have expressed wanting to avoid unsafe travel and the need to care for family members. Our actions cannot worsen the public health crisis.

Our academic and administrative leaders have been carefully assessing the School’s physical space and the relationship of our spaces to our educational goals. A primary focus is which educational activities will be included in each phase of return to campus. While we expect plans to evolve as we learn more about the course of the pandemic, we have concluded that the certainty of knowing courses will be taught remotely this fall is the best and safest course of action for our students, faculty, and staff."

Contrast this also with the approach taken by Tufts, which communicated its decision to students in June as well: "The School of Medicine has determined that all MPH coursework offered in fall 2020 will be delivered remotely. This decision was made after extensive research and consideration of many different options. As a program which requires no on-campus clinical training, the MPH program has the ability to take advantage of remote delivery without compromising course quality. By moving to remote instruction, we hope to provide you with the flexibility to decide when and how to relocate to Boston without compromising your health or your budgets. Since we are located in the heart of an urban center, this decision also allows for more effective social distancing and will contribute to city-wide efforts to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 and to protecting the health of the Tufts community."

The last sentence of the Tufts note is what perhaps bothers me the most about the BUSPH decision. Our primary goal right now should be to do everything we can to minimize morbidity and mortality from the pandemic. The decision to bring students together in the classroom for long periods of time (three hours) violates social distancing objectives and threatens, rather than contributes to city-wide efforts to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 and to protect the health of the BUSPH community, as well as the community we share with South End residents and those living throughout Boston and the Commonwealth.