Open Letter to BUSPH Administration from a Public Health Student (Anonymous)

To the BUSPH Administration:

I am a current BUSPH student writing to express my concern about our school’s decision to pursue a hybrid educational model this fall, and to request that we shift to an online-only model. I plan to submit this concern through the Student Senate so as to remain anonymous. I was hesitant to share my share my views but realized that my views are shared by many of my public health peers, not only at BUSPH but also at other public health institutions. Our decision to pursue the LfA model troubles me for three reasons.

First, I believe that LfA is a poor educational model: 

1)      LfA has been advertised as a way to give students a choice. However, a hybrid education isn’t simply a combination of an in-person and a remote model; it strips away the most valuable elements of either model. LfA poses challenges for all students involved:

a)       The in-person experience will be physically uncomfortable (masks for hours on end, the inability to see facial expressions, no eating or drinking, students and professors feeling distracted and tense, etc.). While some students do cite a need to learn in person, the discomfort caused by these distracting restrictions will outweigh the usual benefits.

b)      LfA remote students will have a worsened academic experience than they would in an online-only model. If everyone were on Zoom, professors and students would be able to see and engage with one another directly. The LfA model’s dual nature creates two types of student/teacher relationships, with remote students getting the short end of the stick. 

c)       By contrast, we know that an online-only model affords an excellent educational experience. Public health can effectively be taught remotely; there is no laboratory or tactile component to our field. I had an incredible educational experience in the Spring 2020 semester, learning valuable lessons and forming meaningful relationships despite the remote environment.  That’s because everyone was in a single Zoom classroom, so the experience was cohesive and equitable.

d)      If there is something extra to be gained from the in-person experience, then we must admit that remote students will have an inferior educational experience. It is disingenuous to simultaneously claim that the experiences are equal and tout the in-person benefits as an argument in support of LfA.

2)      LfA sets students up for yet another disruptive mid-semester shift. Boston is projected to experience its second COVID-19 spike in the fall, which will likely force BUSPH to return to an online-only model. We can avoid this disruption by anticipating the inevitable and starting online-only.

3)     The hybrid model increases professors’ workloads, requiring them to make their curriculum appropriate for both in-person and remote students, with an ever-changing number of students in either category.

Second, the hybrid model contradicts the core values of public health and of our institution:

1)     Good public health practice centers community voices. The LfA decision failed to do this. The BUSPH administration pursued a hybrid model without seeking sufficient input from the BUSPH community. Making decisions on behalf of a community, without listening to the community’s wisdom and perspective, is antithetical to everything I’ve been taught at BUSPH.

a.       BUSPH students: The administration inadequately integrated student voices while developing this model. The majority of students were not asked if they support LfA or have suggestions for improving it. Students filled out a survey almost 2 months ago – before information about classroom precautions was available. Moreover, expressing that we’d return in-person if the option were *safely* available does not mean we endorse the hybrid model.

b.       BUSPH faculty and staff: BUSPH students are concerned with more than just our own flexibility. We care for and respect BUSPH faculty and staff, who have shaped our graduate experiences and career trajectories. It is inappropriate to prioritize student needs (in poor faith, since students were not given a sufficient platform to express those needs) above the safety of faculty and staff, who have to jump through hoops for a fraction of the choice afforded to students. Students recognize that untenured professors are in a vulnerable position if they contradict BUSPH administration. Making a decision that takes advantage of faculty and staff vulnerability reflects poorly on the administration. 

c.       Our surrounding community: Are we concerned with how this decision affects the health of the South End community? Of the greater Boston community? Of students attending Boston Public Schools, whose return to school (and achievement of age-appropriate personal and academic milestones) depends on our ability to contain the virus and reopen schools? Even if we aren’t concerned, our greater community is: Boston City Councilwoman Kenzie Bok requested that BU and Northeastern remain online so that an influx of students would not contribute to a second wave in Boston. The fact that BUSPH did not publicly respond to Councilwoman Bok demonstrates a lack of commitment to addressing the expressed needs of our surrounding community.

2)     Good public health practice prioritizes health over profit. The LfA model fails to do this. Many BUSPH students feel that the hybrid model is an attempt by the administration to increase enrollment. There is no other apparent benefit to this model. This is at odds with our principles: once profit guides our decision-making, we lose all credibility when we urge the NRA, the tobacco industry, vaping companies, and others to prioritize health over profit.

3)     Good public health practice is evidence-based. The LfA model is not. By making this decision months before the Fall 2020 semester, BUSPH made a decision uninformed by data. A more appropriate decision-making approach would have been: “We are taking the steps necessary to implement a hybrid model, but will decide in mid-August if it is safe enough to implement it.” Instead, the administration fully committed to a policy that many are uncomfortable with, and chose to spend months justifying it, rather than modeling adaptability and evidence-based policymaking as new information became available (i.e., a spike in cases nationally and internationally, student and faculty and staff concern over LfA). 

4)     Good public health practice is about meaningful, timely communication. LfA messaging is a distraction to students. When COVID-19 surfaced, I felt grateful to be attending a leading public health institution during the public health crisis of my lifetime. However, I am learning nothing about public health when regular communication from my school is about an app I should download or the rotation system for in-person classes. What I want to hear from my school right now is: How can I encourage my friends to safely do the activities they want to do? How do we confront testing inequity? Instead of discussions around our role in combating COVID-19, we have focused our energy, time, and resources on a model that is logistically challenging to implement and that contradicts our core values.

5)     Good public health practice promotes equitable access to health-promoting resources. The LfA testing system fails to do so. BU’s goal is to test 6,000 BU community members daily. These tests have 24-hour turnaround for results (rapid tests not covered by insurance so are inaccessible to the non-BU community). If BU has the capacity to process 6,000 rapid tests daily, why not support communities where testing is urgently needed (i.e., essential workers, medical professionals, individuals experiencing homelessness, elderly individuals)? Currently, MA residents might wait up to 7-11 days for their results. Delays in testing directly contribute to increased transmission. If BU made rapid tests available throughout Boston and MA, it could help contain the spread of COVID-19 (which ought to be the primary goal of public health institutions during a pandemic), instead of actively contributing to it. 

Third, the hybrid model is a racist policy. We are in the midst of a nationwide awakening around racial injustice and anti-Blackness in US institutions (including academia and public health). BU hired one of the leading scholars in anti-racism education, Dr. Ibram X. Kendi. It will reflect poorly on BUSPH once we start examining and discussing the racial inequities perpetuated by COVID-related policies. Faculty diversity trainings and our series on the 400 years of inequality seem hollow and performative when BUSPH policies do not reflect a commitment to anti-racism. For the following reasons, I find LfA to be a racist policy:

1)      The students most likely to come to campus are:

a.       Those who feel safe doing so (i.e., do not have preexisting conditions that increase the risk of fatal COVID-19 outcomes or family members with these conditions)

b.       Those who live with similarly aged peers, instead of in intergenerational households

c.       Those with the financial means to avoid public transportation (either by driving to campus or by living in the prohibitively expensive South End)

What these groups of students have in common is that they are more likely to be white. A system in which white students are more comfortable coming to campus is a racially-segregated and two-tiered educational system. As established earlier, the current model puts remote students at a disadvantage, which further exacerbates education inequity across racial lines.

2)      Reopening schools repeatedly cite that those dying from COVID-19 are not college students. The subtext of this argument is that those who are dying are older individuals, and/or those living in low-income communities of color. Ignoring the racial inequities of COVID-19’s impacts just because the student body isn't dying fails to recognize how quickly and devastatingly COVID-19 can spread from BUSPH’s campus to Boston’s communities of color.

3)      If and when COVID-19 spreads across the BUSPH campus, the graduate students (who are primarily white and financially comfortable) won’t be in the most danger. Instead, the sanitation workers responsible for cleaning potentially COVID-infected classrooms—who are disproportionately people of color—will experience the most on-campus exposure. 

A common sentiment among BUSPH students is that the goal of LfA to increase enrollment. I genuinely understand that need: remaining solvent prevents layoffs and enables us to provide a valuable education to both present and future students. However, I urge you to consider the long-term enrollment implications of this decision. For years to come, the public health community (including prospective students) will ask hard questions around how leading public health institutions conducted themselves during COVID-19. A friend of mine is applying for PhD programs this fall, and has removed BUSPH from her list due to our decision to reopen unnecessarily. A recent BUSPH graduate told me that she is concerned that BUSPH’s rush to reopen despite obvious consequences tarnishes her MPH degree – she is worried that prospective employers will be less confident in BUSPH alumni. Hearing these concerns from both perspective students and alumni, I question the value of my own future degree. Reputation matters. 

It isn’t too late for BUSPH to pursue an online-only model (even if BU does not change its plans). It would take humility and honesty to say that, given the current nationwide and worldwide status of COVID-19, we are opting for an online-only model. I also think that if, in fact, a goal of LfA was to ensure solvency, we can shift to an online-only model knowing that students have already paid their tuition. Students would recognize that this is largely out of our hands.

I appreciate and respect how challenging this decision has been to make and that there are competing factors to consider. But if I stay silent, I’d be abandoning the core values that drive my public health practice. I feel a moral obligation to hold institutions that represent me accountable. Thank you for taking the time to review and consider my request. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A concerned BUSPH student