#political/societal message that is NOT packaged well enough to like. not take you out of the story and make you wonder why bigby would

[blueslight]

I started reading the fables comics and theres a character named Frau Totenkinder in there which is obviously supposed to be a german name ("Frau" in front of a last name is like Mrs) but i cant figure out what they THOUGHT totenkinder meant . Kinder = children, and tot = dead, (die) toten = the dead, but not like. That. Totenkinder doesnt mean the dead children, at best it means children of the dead, but given that shes the gingerbread house witch, i dont think thats what they meant, i think her last name is supposed to mean kills children or children-killer but like why didnt they find SOME german to ask .. it wouldve had to be kindertöter or tötetkinder . Both of which sound silly in german but so does totenkinder . Same with when they said Allerleirauh means "every kind of fur" i mean, TECHNICALLY it does, but no one would ever say that like that anymore....

[rulystuff]

https://servicemeltdown.com/who-amongst-us-will-stand-on-the-tower/

New Post has been published on https://servicemeltdown.com/who-amongst-us-will-stand-on-the-tower/

WHO AMONGST US WILL STAND ON THE TOWER?

In ancient times, watchmen would stand on a tall stone tower always vigilant to the potential of an approaching danger. The role of the watchman, particularly at harvest time, was important to the survival of a community in agrarian societies. The watchman, in effect an early warning system, was called upon to sound an alarm which could prove crucial in thwarting an attack both from ravenous animals and from malefactors who would rather make off with a neighbor farmer’s fruits and vegetables than to labor and toil in their own fields. In times of war, the role of the watchman was critical in spying potential enemy threats to a town: if a threat appeared, the watchman would blow his horn and the townspeople would rally and prepare for battle. 

In Scripture, the symbolism of the watchman is profound. No less a figure than the 8th century B.C. prophet Isaiah – who prophesied the birth of Christ in Isaiah 7:14 – conveys God’s message to us, “I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest,” Isaiah 62:6. In 21st century America we all have a moral duty to serve as watchmen as the nation is presently besieged by enemy forces both foreign and domestic.

GLOBALIZATION: AN ANTI-DEMOCRATIC NIGHTMARE

The current demagoguery in the hands of globalists takes the ugly form that a citizen who believes in national borders and national priorities cannot be a good citizen – that he is a fascist some claim. We need to be reminded that the American revolution was a nationalist uprising which few would call fascist. The current sophistry in the hands of globalists belies that a citizen who is devoted to his homeland and who places the interests of his nation-state as the top priority can exist, at the same time, with a world view that is tolerant and respectful of those beyond his borders. Furthermore, to be respectful of global interests is not to suggest that those who can afford it should be forced to open their pocketbooks to fix all of the world’s ills. That suggestion is impudent and a sleight-of-hand by globalists whose own personal agendas for control stand to be upended by the rights and privileges of sovereign states. Simply stated, globalism is imperialism in sheep’s clothing. What other conclusion is there to be had when an international organization made up of unelected bureaucrats imposes its will on the citizens of member nations? That supranational organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Health Organization are anti-democratic is a statement of fact and not of ideology. The globalization conceit held by leaders in and out of government around the world and in the United States should sound an alarm to those who believe in the sanctity of democratic processes. Put simply, globalization and democracy are hardly fraternal twins. Globalists believe that globalization’s ugly side, lower wages, lost jobs, shuttered factories or devastated communities is the result of there not being enough global governance to channel all of the good that derives from globalization. And besides, globalists say, any discomfort is strictly temporary. As Mr. Pascal Lamy, former Director of the World Trade Organization said in a recent address, “The future lies with more globalization, not less…”

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM IS A TARGET FOR HOSTILE NATIONS

We have witnessed the onslaught visited upon our shores by the Chinese Communist Virus which at last count had extinguished the lives of two-hundred thousand innocent Americans and for which China takes no responsibility despite having its fingerprints all over the heinous act. Meanwhile, China’s propaganda machine is working full-throttle in our schools and universities. Over one hundred Confucius Institutes – incongruously named as Confucius was a man who preached humaneness – are now operating in our country for the ostensible purpose of disseminating Chinese language, history, and cultural instruction. Colleges have taken in huge sums of money over the years from the Communist regime with the proviso that all discussion and instruction toe the Chinese propaganda line. In the end, that means subjects like the human right abuses of over a million Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, or the independence of Taiwan and Tibet are off limits. Only recently did the State Department deem the Institutes propaganda missions which means they will have to adhere to the same restrictions as diplomatic embassies. This action by the United States is welcome news but comes rather belatedly given that Li Changchun, a member of the Politburo, said back in 2009 that the Institutes “are an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” On the commercial front, China purloins roughly $225 billion, at the low end and as much as $600 billion at the high end, annually in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets from the United States. Militarily, America faces a serious threat in the South China Sea where it is being challenged by a territorially aggressive and technologically advanced Chinese Navy. Rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran pose further threats to peace and prosperity led as those regimes are by unbalanced tyrannical dictators.

AMERICA’S DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND BELIEFS ARE UNDER ATTACK FROM WITHIN

The nation has literally been set ablaze by malcontents who would rather settle their philosophical differences not with ballots but with bullets. On the whole, this is the most insidious threat to the democratic ideals of our nation as these forces amount to a fifth-column enemy which has infiltrated our schools, our courts, our churches, all manner of political institutions, and the media. The cultural relativism which now pervades our institutions suggests that no ethical or moral value is superior to any other and so as we see in our contemporary society anything goes:

The teaching of history, language, law, culture and science particularly in the early school grades is now subject to disinformation, myth, and propaganda like never before courtesy of the “knowledge elites” with their own less than charitable axes to grind.

The muzzling both figuratively as well as physically of opposing points of view via the corrosive and regressive practice of “cancel culture” on college campuses renders those institutions little more than very expensive echo chambers.

Looting and rioting is now seen by members of fringe groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa as a legitimate compensatory action to right perceived civil wrongs. Sadly, many local political leaders across the nation are either in league with the rioters or choose to look the other way.

Judicial activism which compels judges who feel it their duty to go beyond the law as written and to interpret it as they see fit countermands the judgment of elected legislators and sets up the courts as super-legislatures.

Sermonizing by certain church fathers on the ills of “white privilege,” wealth, and physical fences while abrogating their responsibility to convey the church’s catechism to their flocks does serious disservice to parishioners seeking spiritual and not political guidance.

Proselytizing by political leaders on the Left that Socialism is in the best interest of the nation. These same demagogues, of course, fail to mention that the socialist experiment has only led to environmental despoliation, starvation, the demise of entrepreneurial initiative, and the spread of a welfare mentality. Rest assured, proponents of Socialism are not able to cite one historical antecedent where the egoism and presumed “wisdom” of central know-it-alls were an able substitute for the actions of countless sovereign consumers and producers operating in a free-market society.

The societal maelstrom, if not gradual dissolution, we are experiencing in our nation is fueled first and foremost by media elites who have the power and the means to filter information and package it so that it satisfies their agenda objectives without regards to the truth or fact. The mainstream media monopolies in Los Angeles, New York and Washington set the table for what most unwary Americans consume as unvarnished factual “information.” Not to be outdone, the oligarchs who control social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose what content and what voices they will police so long as they are in keeping with their own preferences and biases.

WE MUST ALL BECOME WATCHMEN ON THE TOWER

The defense of America comes easily to those who are united by the uniquely American principles of liberty, democracy, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, individual choice, and the sanctity of private property. Citizens who fail to grasp these “self-evident” truths owe it to themselves to undertake self-study, if not self-examination, to reaffirm that the American Dream is indeed not a slogan but a unique experiment that can only be realized in our great nation. Now, more than at any other time in our history, Americans need to hone their critical thinking skills so as to question the sources, facts, data, and research thrown at them for the explicit purpose of besmirching the American Dream.

The assaults which threaten the constitutional, cultural, and democratic fabric of America demand that we as citizens stand watch day and night. We must all stand tall on the watch tower and sound the horn so as to rally our fellow citizens as we prepare for battle.

[mamasakimama]

Not So Fake

A birthday gift for @amakatarei! <3 

Himuro was sick and tired of this.

It happened with every girl that came up to him, every doe-eyed, blushing, stuttering girl who thought that they could do what no girl could and win him over. He’d step back, politely take whatever chocolate or gift they held, and try to be as gentle as possible when telling them he wasn’t interested, especially on Valentine’s day. He knew he wouldn’t even touch the bags filled with chocolate.

In this sort of environment, he couldn’t just tell them that he wasn’t straight or he might meet resistance, and if he’d learned something here, it was to get along with as many people as possible. It was things like this that made him miss America.

The girl this time was seriously getting on his nerves. It was almost pathetic how pushy and not-so-subtle she was, smoothing down her skirt, fluttering lashes, even squeezing her arms slightly together to accentuate her breasts. If only she knew how sickening it was to him.

“But…” Her eyes blinked, starting to well up with tears. “Are you sure…? I thought we had a moment there in math class when you picked up my papers for me.”

And suddenly he was done. He’d never asked for this, and to hell with societal norms. “Look. I said I’m not interested, and I never will be. If you must know, I’m seeing a guy.” There, it was out. She could judge him as she willed, shun him maybe, but he didn’t care at this point. “Good day,” he continued, and turned, briskly walking around the building and off campus. It was only when he’d cleared the gates that he broke into a run.

There was really only one place to go, one person to talk to, if he wanted an end to it all.

Finding Atsushi in his house was more than normal at this point; it was expected. He noted the abnormally large pair of shoes in the entryway and let out a breath of relief as he hung up his scarf and coat.

“Atsushi?” he called into the house. His parents wouldn’t be home until late, as usual, so he didn’t bother keeping his voice down, especially since he needed to talk to Atsushi urgently.

He was rewarded with the sight of Atsushi slumped over the coffee table, working through some sort of homework. Hurrying over, he put both hands on the table in front of him, forcing him to look up. Himuro didn’t know what he looked like in that moment, but it was enough to make Atsushi’s eyes widen a little.

There was no beating around the bush to be had. He knew Atsushi hated it when he did that anyway. “Atsushi, I need you to pretend to be my boyfriend.”

He didn’t know what he expected - a flat out refusal, a discomfited, strange look maybe, but he was immensely relieved when he didn’t get much other than just a question.

“Why?”

“This is why,” he said, reaching behind him for the bags of chocolate. He set them down on the table and continued, “If I get another of these, I will probably go crazy. And today I told the girl - I told her I was seeing a guy.”

The taller one’s face relaxed a little, and suddenly Himuro couldn’t read it. It startled him - he was so used to being able to read Atsushi, but this time there was nothing. Had he said something wrong?

But after a moment, Atsushi shrugged and turned back to his homework. “Sure,” was all he said, penciling in an answer.

Himuro breathed another sigh of relief and opened his backpack, pulling out his own study materials. He situated himself as he normally did, next to Atsushi with his homework and textbooks in neat stacks around him.

“I’m sorry,” he went on. “You were the first person I thought of, and we spend so much time together anyway… Well, I’ll figure it out. Thanks, Atsushi.”

Atsushi glanced up and nodded, pulling over one of the chocolate packages. It was a familiar routine, and Himuro settled into it, relaxing and basking in the comfortable silence and welcome company. Maybe he should have done this much earlier.

At first, the gossip stayed at the edges of his vision, words whispered behind hands that quickly stopped when he looked their way, and no one bothered him for at least a week. It was blissfully peaceful, and he hadn’t even had to do anything that he knew would make Atsushi uncomfortable.

But he couldn’t deny that sometimes… Sometimes he wanted to take advantage of the fact that they had to appear to be in a relationship. He caught himself on more than a few occasions wanting to reach over and take his hand, or hug his arm or waist, maybe rise onto his tiptoes to press a small and easy kiss to his cheek. Of course, there were other things too, but he didn’t think Atsushi would appreciate them.

But maybe he’d restrained himself too much, because it didn’t take nearly as long as he’d hoped for some girl to come up to them during lunch.

“I don’t think you’re actually dating,” she said. She raised an eyebrow at the both of them, and honed in on Himuro expectantly.

“Oh?” He frowned slightly for emphasis. “I was under the impression that we could have our own opinion about whether we were dating or not.” Atsushi slowly looked up at the girl warily, and Himuro made a mental note to diffuse the situation before Atsushi had to step in.

“Alright, but even though you spend a lot of time together, no one has seen you two ever kiss or hold hands or anything.”

“Do we need to? It’s not your place--”

His voice faltered when he felt a pair of lips brush against his cheek.

“Is that enough for you?”

Himuro turned in amazement to see Atsushi stand up and stare the girl down, and with his height it was enough to make her slowly back away and turn, briskly walking down the hall. He stayed standing for a few moments after she’d left, and then sat down again, going back to eating. He must have felt Himuro’s stare on him, however, since he looked up a minute later.

“What?” His voice came out muffled around the onigiri he was currently consuming. “We’re supposed to be dating.”

At a loss for words, Himuro swallowed and nodded. It took him a while, but he managed a “Thanks, Atsushi.”

He was all the more confused now.

The gestures of affection increased after that, and Himuro was torn between confronting him about it and possibly ending everything or continuing to let things be as they were.

The first was as they were walking down the hallway, and Himuro felt a nudging at his hand. Looking up, he saw that Atsushi’s gaze wasn’t even pointed in his direction, but his pinky finger had curled itself around his. Needless to say, he had to try a little extra hard to keep his face neutral.

In another instance, they were eating lunch, and under the table, Himuro felt his foot become ensconced between two others, but Atsushi seemed to be intent on devouring an umaibo. Himuro was honestly too comfortable to move his foot, even if it had been an accident, so he left it there, and if he ate his own lunch with a little more force than usual, no one had to know.

All throughout the week, it seemed like Atsushi was always letting him know with small touches here and there that he was very much present, and if his aim had been to not let Himuro forget that he was there, it was very much working.

But now he couldn’t take it anymore.

Obviously, Atsushi was trying to tell him something, and dare he hope…? The signs clearly pointed in the direction he wanted them to go in, but he had to find out, one way or another.

So here he was, at the park half an hour too early to leave for school, shivering as he kept his hands jammed in his pockets. He just hoped that Atsushi had gotten his message, since he’d left early the previous day.

Himuro was rewarded for his efforts as his unmistakably tall teammate appeared at the end of the path and drew closer to stop in front of him. He looked up at Atsushi’s face, looking for anything out of the ordinary, but the taller boy’s face was relaxed, normal.

“Sorry to call you out so early,” he started, suddenly unsure. “I just… needed to talk to you.”

“I know.”

His eyes flicked upward, taken aback. “You… do?” When he got a nod, he continued, “So you know what this is about?”

Atsushi didn’t speak at first, and walked over to sit down on a nearby bench, waiting until Himuro slowly joined him to open his mouth. It seemed as if the entire world was holding its breath.

“You like me.” It wasn’t a question, and Himuro was now gaping.

“What? I…” Well, he couldn’t deny it now, could he? There was no point if Atsushi already knew. So he took a deep breath and met his eyes. “Do… do you feel the same way?”

It took Atsushi a moment, but he slowly asked, “Does it mean you like someone when you constantly want to hold their hand, or give them a hug just because, or maybe…” At this he tilted his head slightly, studying Himuro. “Kiss them?”

It was all Himuro could do not to collapse against him right then and there out of sheer relief. Instead he let out a breath, and let the corners of his mouth pull upward. “Yes, Atsushi. I believe it does.”

The answer was immediate. “Then yes, I do.”

“Would you perhaps like to date - for real, I mean?” Himuro swallowed, reaching for the closest thing, which happened to be Atsushi’s hands, to grip tightly, and took comfort in the fact that he squeezed back.

“I’d assumed we were dating already?” The taller one’s face scrunched slightly in confusion. “Didn’t you…”

It dawned on Himuro that all those gestures that Atsushi had given him throughout their tenure as fake boyfriends had been genuine. He’d been a fool - an utter, complete fool. Didn’t he know that Atsushi didn’t give out even his approval lightly? If the other had thought him important enough to instigate tokens of affection without being prompted, that alone should have been clear enough that he was indeed special to Atsushi.

But it was also funny.

“Why are you laughing, Murochin…?”

He hadn’t realized that he was laughing out loud, but he suddenly needed to kiss Atsushi, show him that his efforts hadn’t gone to waste. So he cupped his cheeks and brought his face down toward him, planting a lingering kiss on his lips right there. When they parted, he could see an extra tint in his boyfriend’s cheeks, not just from the cold.

“Come on, Atsushi,” he said, standing up and looping his arm through the other’s, this time for real. “Let’s go to school, and I’ll tell you about it later.”

[nickgerlich]

When Ideas Become Political

Marketing is not just for goods and services. Sometimes it is used to promote ideas. Unfortunately, in our highly polarized society (thank you, social media), ideas are quickly assigned to either the liberal or conservative camp, much like a delivery room doc takes one look and decrees boy or girl.

“Going Green” is a good example, and has been with us for a number of decades now. I recall the 1971 Keep America Beautiful TV ad that featured what looked to be a Native American canoeing in a polluted river, smokestacks belching in the background.

While the message was pure, the campaign was just a little bit disingenuous when it was discovered an Italian-American actor was used, and that high-profile beverage and packaging companies had backed it. In other words, companies that were actually opposed to the very idea they were selling.

I’ll just leave that hypocrisy on the table for you to ponder. Meanwhile, more than 50 years later, the green message is still being sold to us, but now, it is being cast--at least by some--as a very liberal (read: Democratic) notion.

A recent Facebook post from Amarillo’s Newschannel10 illustrates these sentiments. Newschannel10 is owned by Gray Television, an Atlanta-based media conglomerate with stations in 102 markets across the country. A lot of the web and television content that Newschannel10 uses has been produced high up the food chain, and so it is not uncommon to find articles from other cities in which Gray owns a station.

The post in question originated in Evansville Indiana, the River City, and offered “5 Easy Ways To Go Green (And Save Money).” While there were not many comments overall, they were negative and demonstrated just how easy some people put labels on ideas. Here are a few examples scraped from the FB post:

The best way to go green? Push government officials to hold these giant corporations accountable for destroying the planet in exchange for the almighty dollar!

Stick your green

Why does a news channel in the middle of a conservative area...post this liberal crap. Read the room .....

Never mind the last comment, in which a reader suggests because this is a “conservative area,” then “liberal crap” should never be foisted upon anyone. Can anyone say echo chamber?

For the life of me, though, I cannot figure out how being a good steward has become politicized. It makes selling such a concept all the more difficult. As if trying to convince people and companies they should not pollute hasn’t been hard enough, now it has been split down the middle.

All of which makes selling the concept more challenging for whomever has the microphone. Based on the comments (which I realize is not at all a valid sampling of reactions), you would think that--at least for those conservatives--that it’s almost their duty to continue despoiling America, that to adopt these recommendations is tantamount to turning in your old voter registration card. You may as well just paint yourself blue.

And that’s where I disagree. While I keep my voting record very private, a handful of my closest family and friends know that I tend to vote red, primarily for economic reasons. But socially and environmentally, I guess I am now on the other side of the aisle, at least in the eyes of those who have made this a political hot potato.

It simply does not have to be this way, though. At the risk of some thinking I am just virtue signalling, I recycle as much as possible. I take reusable bags to the grocery. I use LED bulbs, and keep my in-house temperature cool in winter and somewhat warmish in summer. I have been known to ride my bike to the store.

Big deal. None of this makes me a saint, nor does it make me a member of one political party or another. I do these things because they are important to me, and given the ever-expanding Mount Trashmore that I see every single day west of Canyon Texas, I think it is important for all of us to consider.

Maybe what the proponents of green living need to consider is how to up their marketing game. How can the idea of going green be presented in more personal terms? Yes, the article I linked suggests how consumers can save money by adopting these ideas, which is a good start. But maybe they need to examine the broader societal costs that will accrue in a long-run in which we have neglected to respect our rather tenuous relationship with Mother Earth.

It’s no small task to be sure, but it needs to be done. I would never stoop so low as to pander to religious conservatives by framing it as a “What Would Jesus Do?” proposition, but then again, maybe some strong language is needed to hammer home the point. It’s not a political idea, and never was one, but somehow it wound up that way.

It’s time to put aside our political leanings and view this message as not just “liberal crap,” but rather a damn good idea for us all. That landfill is about the ugliest thing I have ever seen out here.

Dr “Reuse, Recycle, Repurpose...and Reconsider“ Gerlich

Audio Blog

[thesnhuup]

The Decision to Stay with Remote Study and Work: A Deeper Dive

Our announcement this week that we will not bring students and employees back to campus in September has predictably disappointed a lot of people and I’ve received lots of messages from students and parents. A number of students have asked for a more detailed explanation, something I’m happy to do. While our communications outlined our reasoning, let me respond with more detail to some of the themes in the comments and questions we’ve been receiving: 

Everyone knows that students are at a very low statistical risk of serious consequences from infection.

Absolutely right. But a campus is made up of students and many people who are at higher risk: faculty, dining hall workers, facilities staff, public safety, and other students with underlying conditions.  Also, commuters go back and forth to home, often to family members who are also at high risk. Because students are apt to be asymptomatic when infected, they can spread the infection without knowing it.  We need to think about the safety of all our at-risk community members. As one public health expert told me:

If your students get infected, many might not even know it.

If faculty and staff get sick, they will be knocked out for a while and as sick as they have ever been.

If any have underlying health conditions, they can easily end up on a ventilator, and some may die.

If commuters or others go home, older family members — parents and grandparents – will be at great risk.

But the World Health Organization now doubts that infected people remain asymptomatic.  

That one statement was quickly walked back by the WHO and discounted by the world’s best infectious disease specialists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci. The general understanding remains: infected people, typically younger, can remain asymptomatic and inadvertently spread the infection. New concerns are also being raised about the long-term health consequences of being infected and recovering. As I’m sure you know, even young children (statistically, the lowest risk) can suffer severe consequences. The virus remains dangerous and virulent and it is most emphatically not a slightly worse version of the flu.  This analysis is pretty dense, but is one of the best I’ve read: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-should-we-aim-for-herd-immunity-like-sweden-b1de3348e88b.  

Other schools are figuring it out, why can’t we?

Most schools say they intend to figure it out. We have not seen a convincing plan for effectively re-opening that A) properly protects at-risk members of the community, and B) provides a real semblance of normal campus life (or anything close to it). Guidelines recommend only single rooms, preferably with their own bathroom. We cannot do that. Also, as we understand that 6-foot distancing is not enough given the aerosol nature of the virus, the density of classrooms makes anything like a normal face-to-face schedule almost impossible and would quadruple the number of sections needed (and the teaching loads of faculty). 

I think many students think we could come back to something approximating normal. Someone asked if they could at least live in the dorms, have a quasi-normal social life, and take classes online. Dorm life would be so restricted I fear it would feel more like prison. To make even a stab at opening up then means a campus life that is hardly recognizable. No gatherings, spectator-less sports events, no parties, everyone in masks, faculty perhaps behind Plexiglas, limited-access eating; and we do not have nearly enough classrooms to maintain adequate social distancing guidelines. The fitness center, Pub, and other campus locations would be closed.  

One of the universities with an aggressive stance on re-opening admitted that studies of airflow and infections means they might have to turn off their HVAC systems — an option in their temperate location, but not in New Hampshire in winter. This article captures well the challenge of bringing students back into dormitories: https://bit.ly/3dYiKuu

The last paragraph resonates:

“But relying on structural, policy and behavioral interventions alone will not eliminate the personal risk to students and the collateral risk to the larger college community. In other words, administrators must decide whether the economic costs of delaying the return to campus outweigh the predictable cost of student death and disability.”

We made the decision too early.

No credible scientist believes we will have a vaccine by the fall. No antivirals are yet ready (if we knew getting sick meant not dying, many of us would take the chance). No testing of the kind we need to even consider re-opening is yet available to us (fast — like 10 minutes — plus accurate and affordable). Deciding now gives us more time for everyone to plan and be ready for remote work and study. In addition, we were getting inquiries from parents and students about things like leasing apartments. If the miraculous happens, we can reconsider. But we need to plan for the likely.

Why not take a stab at opening and then send people home if you have to?

First, dorms rival nursing homes and cruise ships for the ability to quickly spread infection. If we send people home across the region and country, we can easily contribute to the expected surge in infections. Important point here: There have been 10 pandemics in the last 250 years and every one of them had an initial surge, a period of decreased infections, and a much worse second surge. There is no reason to believe this pandemic will act differently. As Dr. Fauci said this week, we are still in the beginning of the pandemic and the US has the worst infection rates in the world. Hasty re-opening is likely to make matters worse. Our campus could crush the local health care system if we have a severe outbreak and even if we caught it early, closed down, and sent everyone home, we would contribute to the spread of the virus and put families at risk. Also, remember how difficult it was to do the clearing of campus this spring — we’d be in the same situation.

Did we take student sentiment into consideration?

We recognized that a decision not to bring everyone back would make most students (and a lot of parents) unhappy, but we did not make this decision based on popular opinion, political sentiments, or economic pressures. We understand as well as anyone quarantine fatigue, the emotional and psychological toll, and the need for social contact that the pandemic exacerbates. The task force looked at public health guidance, the science, the logistics, and our local context and made its recommendation based on logic, not desire.  We share the desire.

But I don’t like remote courses.  [Variations: I need more structure than remote courses provide.]

We understand that many of our students prefer in-person courses. But if campus is denied us, then remote learning is our only option. Having the summer allows us to be even better prepared for remote teaching and learning in the fall. Every student who has taken remote courses knows that what is true for a campus-based course is also true for a remote course: what you as a student put into the course directly correlates to what you get out of the course. We will provide robust supports and a wide range of resources for you to help ensure your success. 

SNHU is using the pandemic to force a shift to only online learning.

We didn’t invest in campus improvements including building a new engineering building and replacing old dorms with stunning new residence halls in order to be rid of the campus. Moreover, not opening hits our budget very hard. We are currently working to reinvent our campus programs and lower tuition, and my hope is that rather than shrink the campus from 3,000 students we might double the number of students having the campus experience, even if online learning becomes part of the overall mix. There is no version of the future in which we do not have a robust campus learning environment.

You lowered the tuition for the fall, but you took away scholarship money. Why?

Scholarship packages were built to help cover a $31,000 annual tuition. When we lower tuition, that same level of need is no longer there. The great majority of our students will pay less out of pocket than they would have if we had reconvened with our regular tuition rate and scholarships. We will work case by case with that small number of students adversely affected.

I’m a returning student now paying the lower $10,000 annual tuition rate, but first-year students are having their $10,000 tuition covered with a scholarship. Isn’t that unfair?

We have heard this one a lot. Returning students get the established curriculum, work with campus faculty, have choices for classes, and are engaged in a program that they chose and are completing. In contrast, first -year students were expecting the same programs, but have been told that those will not be available to them after all. They missed their opportunity to go elsewhere in many instances and they do not yet know what their programs will look like, so they are taking a bet on us. We are also asking them to be actively engaged in shaping those future programs. Given all of that, the scholarships are only fair in our eyes.  

Remaining remote has a disproportionate impact on our most disadvantaged students.

The pandemic has shined a harsh light on societal inequity, and higher education is no exception. The task force is well aware of what this decision means for those suffering food or housing insecurity or a lack of access to technology. They are working on ways to support students in that situation.   

I suspect that none of what I’ve outlined above makes students and parents any happier, but it might help with understanding. One of our core values is “Always do the right thing.”  That value drove the task force recommendation, my decision, and how we will support students going forward.

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J from President's Corner https://ift.tt/2UDwJy6 via IFTTT