I don't understand WSJ framing of Schlissel comments
The first paragraph of the WSJ article reads: "The University of Michigan won’t have a football season this fall unless all students are able to be back on campus for classes" (emphasis added). But that's not what Schlissel is actually quoted as saying.
Schlissel instead tells the WSJ that "if there is no on-campus instruction then there won't be intercollegiate athletics, at least for Michigan" (emphasis added). In other words, a system in which some students can come back, but not others, would be ok.
This latter take is the more sensible one. People under age 25 have a very low risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19, whereas the elderly do. So it makes sense to keep elderly faculty and staff at home, and also students who live with at-risk individuals.
Schlissel ought to clarify his comments, if the WSJ has inaccurately framed them.
My issue is that lots of news outlets were presenting it to read as an absolute. "If all of our students aren't on campus full time, then there will be unequivocally no athletics". Some people even took it a step further and starting stating "Michigan president: No football this fall". Very disingenuous reporting.
Schissel, who is a careful and thoughtful person, dropped the ball on this one. Putting unclear “what if” scenarios out there is not good for anyone and contributes to the confusion that’s out there already. Quietly confer with internal experts, stakeholders, Big 10 colleagues and others. When there is something definitive to say, that’s the time to talk to the press.
Another day, another binary sort (it seems):
People under age 25 have a very low risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19, whereas the elderly do. So it makes sense to keep elderly faculty and staff at home, and also students who live with at-risk individuals.
OP, it's true that this COVID-19 thing looks a lot less freaky than it did two months ago. We can stop obsessing about disposable gloves (as if that ever made any sense) and maybe shift our focus to avoiding three-hour choir practices for large groups of senior citizens in poorly ventilated shipping containers.
There's still a blurry boundary between at-risk and not-at-risk. What if the 45-year-old professor is hypertensive and well north of two bills? Maybe not a great idea to put him/her in a room with a bunch of twentysomethings ...
Correct—so have that professor teach virtually, but have low-risk individuals teach in person. Make it their choice if they are in a blurry risk category.
What is so unbelieveable about the media twisting people's comments? This is why, on any issue, I gather multiple, diverse inputs. Sad and scary that our media can't report the facts accurately with the same standards for all.
Journalists are evil idiots. They get stuff wrong all the time. Frequently, it's intentional.
I agree that the wording here is tricky - there are a lot of moving parts at work in this scenario. What Schlissel is expressing is a bit confusing, but I do not think he was intentionally taken out of context or misquoted by the journalist.
Journalists have high standards of ethics and most of them strictly abide by them. Most of them are honest and are trying to get to the truth. And when they're wrong, they issue corrections or clarifications and sometimes offer an apology. Saying they're evil idiots who intentionally get stuff wrong is a dangerous road to go down.
When I was a student at UofM, many classes had 1 weekly lecture from, generally, an older professor in a large auditorium. There were ~500 people in some of those classes. The class also had 2 smaller weekly meetings with generally younger teaching assistants. There were 20-25 students in those. One model I can see for fall semester is doing the large lecture on-line while holding the smaller, TA-led, meetings in person.
Will students be required to wear masks indoors? If so, that might be enough to mitigate risks to the point that large lectures can take place. Just a thought, I don’t see any issues with the U mandating that (much like a private store can mandate policy in their own facility)
Pundits make terrible pundits.
Michigan is going to be one of the handful of B1G schools that will not be playing football this fall. MI, IL, NJ, and MD will all consider the risk of opening campuses in the fall too great to their populations. From what I've been reading is that NE, IN, OH, PA will all have campuses open to some degree and will have college football. I guess these states feel the risk will not be that great and that the fans want college football. It will really suck if this scenario plays out and we'll be watching most B1G schools play football.
Wait... you're saying a news source twisted the meaning of a quote? No chance. None.
I don't think Schlissel is going to go all Pewdiepie and clarify WSJ statements. He has better things to do.
Just saw this plan posted by CU Boulder for return to campus in the fall. On first look it seems reasonable. Some key elements. School until thanksgiving and then remote to wrap up the semester, class day from 8am to 9pm to spread out people and split up classes.
This seem like a template UM and others could follow
ND is starting and ending early and Syracuse is starting early, ending by Turkey Day and having Finals from home online on Dec1-5ish. Then they go back like Jan 8-10ish which is 1-2 weeks early for them.
They are private schools, tho I'm not sure why Michigan couldn't to the same
I refuse to believe that the press would misquote someone. If it is in print it is true...period.
This is an excellent post by Communist Football. +1 to him.