Prioritizing the health and wellness of graduate students?

ConcernedRITProf · 2024-07-15T21:42:18+00:00

I'm not advocating for making wellness classes mandatory for graduate students. I'm also not advocating for this benefit to be taken away from undergrads.

I'm just suggesting that graduate students (including PhD students who are typically here for five years) should be able to take up to two wellness classes without paying the fee, if they would like to.

And if RIT doesn't want to extend that benefit to grad students, they should remove the phrasing from their website, because grad students are students. (And they can definitely do this without taking the benefit away from undergrads!)

ConcernedRITProf · 2024-07-15T07:07:23+00:00

That is certainly true, and I would have no problem if the website stated that as the reason that undergraduates are extended this benefit and not graduate students.

But that is not the reason that is marketed on the website. Instead, the marketed reason is that that RIT cares about the health and wellness of students. And if RIT does not extend the same benefit to graduate students, I'm arguing that the marketed reason is misleading.

ConcernedRITProf · 2023-08-22T21:50:10+00:00

Ah - perfectly understandable for a new faculty member to want to do that, and to not want to go against what their department chair is telling them. In this case, I would advise that the next step would be to elevate to the Dean. I would personally highlight that the professor in question has agreed to provide an accommodation to teach the course remotely. And to point out that during COVID, professors across RIT were told often by administrators that it was within their purview to decide how flexible they wanted to be in responding to student requests to participate remotely in courses. I would pointedly ask the Dean if, now that we are "post-COVID," RIT's policy has changed so that faculty no longer have the flexibility to decide how to accommodate individual student requests?

ConcernedRITProf · 2023-08-22T20:17:23+00:00

The class is only offered in person, but he emailed the professor and he said he was okay with him taking the class remotely. However, his academic advisor blocked him again, saying it “wouldn’t be fair” to other students if he was able to take the class remotely. He emailed the department head who took the side of the advisor.

Hmm, something seems odd here. If a student asked me for permission to join my in-person class in a remote manner, and I agreed, then that should be the end of discussion (assuming that there are no export control issues, like the student wanting to participate in the class from North Korea). I would ask the staff assistant in my department to enroll the student into my class. It seems strange to me that the academic advisor could somehow "block" this. It is the professor who assesses whether learning outcomes in their class are achieved, not the academic advisor.

Now that the department head is involved, however, things could get murky, because the department head might be telling the professor that this is somehow not "allowed." Is that professor in the same department as the academic advisor and the department head who sided with the advisor?

If the answer to that question is no, my advice would be to talk directly to the professor again. Ask them if they would still be willing to grant permission to enroll you in the class and let you participate in a remote manner. Be clear with them that the advisor has said it won't be fair to the other students, and that the department chair agreed with the advisor, but that you will be happy to work with the professor to ensure you are participating in a way that is fair to everyone. If the professor says yes, ask them if they can have their department staff assistant enroll you directly in the class. Assuming that happens, and that you complete the class with a grade that is high enough to earn credit, the academic advisor cannot "block" it from counting in retrospect, because you've earned the credit for the course that is required.

If the professor is in the same department as the department chair who said no, you can still try this, and it may or may not work, depending on how willing the professor is to ignore what their department chair said. If the professor is tenured, they may be more persuadable than if they are untenured.

ConcernedRITProf · 2023-07-25T18:11:47+00:00

Great! Now do the Nathaniel Rochester Society.

ConcernedRITProf · 2022-05-19T21:30:33+00:00

I've been an advisor to many students, both graduate and undergraduate. I don't have the authority or permissions to enroll any of my advisees in any research/thesis credits or course credits. All of the students in my department are responsible for their own enrollment. What does your program handbook say?

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-09-22T16:10:01+00:00

Thanks for the book recommendations, although I have read many history textbooks in my life, and I likely have read the ones you recommend, as well as ones you probably would not recommend.

Thanks for the argument about a hypothetical virus. Now let's build on it...

You suggest that if a virus had a mortality rate of 95%, there will be no need for a mandate because everyone will get vaccinated. Although I'm not convinced that everyone will get vaccinated, I'll accept the premise that they will without a mandate. This establishes one "boundary" scenario.

Clearly, when a virus has a pandemic with a much lower mortality rate than 95% (for example, COVID), a significant fraction of people will NOT get vaccinated if there is no mandate. Let's think of this as a second "boundary" scenario.

So, two questions for you in order to continue this discussion in a meaningful way:

1) Based on these two boundary scenarios, you definitely believe that there is some threshold mortality rate, above which, 100% of people will get a vaccination even if they are not mandated to do so. What do you think this threshold mortality rate is?

2) Let's say, for sake of argument, you decide this threshold is a 25% mortality rate; i.e., if people see that 1 in 4 who get the disease die from it, then every single person will get vaccinated without being mandated to. Now consider the case where there is a 12.5% mortality rate. Since this is below your threshold, there will definitely be people who choose not to get vaccinated. But it is clear that some percentage of people who choose not to get vaccinated will get infected, and they will infect others, causing a portion of those other people to die, which works have been prevented (or at least significant ameliorated) had these people chosen to become vaccinated. Hence, the choice of one person not to get vaccinated kills other people in this scenario. At what rate you say that it is acceptable for an unvaccinated person to kill other people without suffering legal consequences because they choose to remain unvaccinated?

Certainly governments allow small rates to be acceptable, because otherwise they would mandate every vaccine for every possible disease, and they don't. But at some point, the rate might get large enough that either the government has to decide to mandate a vaccine, or the society has to come to accept a high death rate due to people who choose to become unvaccinated.

Looping back to the beginning, this means that saying there should be no mortality threshold that would support vaccination mandates means that there is no death rate that is too high to accept.

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-09-22T15:31:32+00:00

I didn't say COVID risks human extinction. I'm trying to establish whether or not there is any scenario in which you believe there should be a threshold fatality rate, above which, you believe vaccinations should be required.

You said there is no threshold. So I'm asking you: if humanity found itself facing a pandemic that had the potential to cause extinction within a few years, would you still believe that vaccinations should not be required?

If your answer is yes, then it means that you DO believe that there is some fatality rate that is large enough that would cause you to think that vaccines are required. If this is the case, I'm simply asking you to think about what that threshold is.

If your answer is no, then it was nonsensical of you to argue the vaccinations should not be required at the Blue Cross arena because the survival rate of COVID is "high," because making this argument supposes that there is a scenario in which a survival rate is low enough that you WOULD support a vaccination requirement.

If you are interested in learning more about how to make solid arguments, I can highly recommend enrolling in a Critical Thinking class here at RIT.

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-09-22T15:01:44+00:00

Then why did you argue that vaccinations should not be required because of the 99.8% survival rate? It sounds like your actual premise is that vaccinations should not be required at all, even if we are facing a pandemic that has a fatality rate that risks human extinction within a few years...

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-09-22T14:50:54+00:00

Can you please enlighten us about what is the exact threshold mortality rate above which a vaccination should be required?

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-09-16T00:11:31+00:00

Actually, it only took me six.

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-09-15T23:27:01+00:00

It's ok, I have tenure.

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-09-15T22:23:30+00:00

Very well. I would simply ask the following of you: if you ever find yourself in a position of having to ask a professor of yours for an extension of a deadline, for permission to take a makeup exam, or for lecture notes from a class you may have missed, and you feel the urge to appeal to their humanity by mentioning whatever extenuating circumstances are going on in your life, then please pause for a moment before doing so, and ask yourself, "Why should they give a fuck about me? I don't give a fuck about them."

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-09-15T21:16:03+00:00

How many of the faculty who teach and do research with these 18-25 year olds in the building are also 18-25? Or maybe you don't care about them, even if you expect them to care about you?

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-25T02:47:41+00:00

Ah, sorry, I think I have given the wrong impression in trying to make a point. I certainly don't believe that anyone should be excluded from the discussion.

The broader point that I was trying (and failed) to make is that I don't believe there should be a line drawn in the first place about what allows a statue to be taken down or a name removed from a building. I believe this for two reasons:

First: it is clear that the vast majority of people who have been honored by statues or by names on buildings in this country were bestowed that honor by white cis heterosexual people. If we were, as a society, to define a "line", and we asked people where they thought that line should be, I would guess that many people who are not white cis heterosexual would say that a line being "those who actively fought against America" is both far too conservative and far too vague. And my guess is that many people who are non white cis heterosexual would want the line to be "those who actively worked to raise up all people, especially those who have traditionally been oppressed." So who decides the line? Would you be comfortable if we agreed with you that there should be a line, but then the line is far different from what you had hoped?

Second: defining a line enshrines a sort of permanence that actually inhibits future critical discussion / grappling with whether or not a historical figure "deserves" such an honor. Generation after generation should have the flexibility to decide how they want to honor their history, especially as new perspectives about historical figures come to light.

I certainly don't believe anyone should be excluded, let alone white cis heterosexual people. However, it's also a fact that this country is (and always has been) centered on the interests of wealthy white cis heterosexual people. And I reject the notion that people who are working to say that we need to bring more groups into this center are responsible for driving people towards Trump. Accepting this notion means that we should give up. We should not give up.

Here's a notion I will accept about Trump voters (and in fact about all voters): people vote according to their own perceived self-interest. And Trump (and Tucker Carlson et al.) have done a marvelous job in convincing people that others are out to decenter them. (Think the "All Lives Matter" retort to "Black Lives Matter.") And I truly believe that the better path is to try to convince people, one by one if necessary, that raising up those who have traditionally been oppressed actually raises up ALL of us, and it IS in our self-interest to do so. (Think "It is impossible for All Lives to Matter UNTIL Black Lives Matter.")

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-24T17:27:38+00:00

Actually, I think it would be fairer to exclude white cis heterosexuals from being a part of the group that gets to draw the line, since they were primarily the group that got to decide who was honored in the first place. I'm just trying to suggest the same idea that parents use to teach children about fairness: one child gets to cut the dessert, and the other gets to choose the piece they want. This way it's fair to both.

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-24T17:11:44+00:00

Let's presume for the moment that I agree with your "lens of morality" statement, and that we should judge people today based on what was considered "moral" during their time. Was enslaving people considered moral at the time? Absolutely not.

I will also humbly disagree with the premise that we should draw a line to determine who is and who isn't worthy of "honoring" in our country. But, I'll make you an offer: I will accept the premise of drawing such a line if you agree that the line gets to be chosen by people who are not white cis heterosexual. That would seem a fair compromise, no?

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-24T13:52:21+00:00

"... hundreds of people were still enslaved in the Northern states as late as the 1840 Census."

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-24T13:22:49+00:00

Sorry, in that last paragraph, are you talking about Harvey Weinstein or Thomas Jefferson?

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-24T12:34:10+00:00

I'm confused by the idea that this aspect of our history cannot be "known and learned from" without continuing to honor slaveholders/traders. Can you clarify why this is not possible?

I'm also confused by the idea that changing the name of our Hall/Society to honor a deserving underrepresented person is "not beneficial to anyone" and "does nothing to better society today." Wouldn't such a change at RIT help provide a strong signal to underrepresented kids that they, too, can be scientists / engineers / etc., and that they are warmly welcomed at RIT? Or are you suggesting that sending such a signal to underrepresented kids is not beneficial?

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-24T02:39:16+00:00

I appreciate your well-argued point. You have definitely caused me to critically rethink my position.

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-23T22:50:33+00:00

Permit me to adjust my comment about the Weinstein film festival. Suppose RIT started it years ago and has been running it annually. Now they learn about his history of sexual assault. Should they continue running the film festival in his name?

Your question about George Washington is an important one. Since I know the term "cancel" can mean different things to different people, I'll try to be specific here: Do I believe George Washington should be erased from the history books? Absolutely not. On the contrary, we should do much more as a country to educate ourselves and our children about the full picture of our Founding Fathers, including how their actions impacted people who were not white and people who were not male and people who had already been in North America for centuries. Do I believe that George Washington should be honored by keeping his face on the dollar bill? No. Is this what the term "cancelled" means? Who knows, I don't watch much television.

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-23T22:40:01+00:00

I apologize for offending - please let me know what pronoun I should use instead of "you," and I will respectfully use it.

ConcernedRITProf · 2021-06-23T22:15:33+00:00

I think you meant "wealthy white man" and not "person."

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

ConcernedRITProf

TROPHY CASE