While on-campus students with positive tests are required to isolate (with runners and case managers assigned), that really describes college-internal procedures, not a “lock-up”. Even more, off-campus students may be expected to manage isolation themselves.
You can only “knowingly release” someone if they had been kept “under lock”. So they are not liable for an infected student leaving college.
That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be dire consequences for flouting official rules, such as not being permitted back to College and/or lose housing. Prior to beginning their year, students likely had formally agreed to unconditionally follow local and national health guidelines, including those permitting travel, for the privilege of accessing (a possibly out of town/state) campus. They would have also agreed to subject themselves to whatever disciplinary procedure for violating official health policies, e.g., they may have signed to:
“Comply with quarantine and testing requirements based on guidance of New York State and the relevant local department of health as well as the public health agency of my travel destination.
… I acknowledge that failure to adhere… may be a breach of Community Standards and the Student Code of Conduct, and could result in disciplinary action, including having my access to campus restricted and/or being removed from housing.”
I would expect colleges to be confident that their policies, which implement state-mandated health orders, to be very defensible.
Of course I care - that’s extremely rude - I am fully vaccinated and boosted and wear my mask everywhere it is required, including flights. I’m not sure what you’re trying to get out of this exchange - I am pointing out that there is no current policy to test fight passengers for Covid before they board. You seem to want colleges to physically prevent adult students who attend there, from flying if they test positive for Covid. I’m telling you there is no precedent for that. You’ll have to petition the airlines to test everyone for Covid before they fly.
Penn hasn’t announced a booster mandate yet, but is encouraging students to get vaccinated during its upcoming three-day clinic. D scheduled her booster shot around finals and will be about a week post-booster before arriving home for winter break. Penn didn’t seem to experience a big uptick in cases after Thanksgiving break—overall positivity rate as of Dec. 4th is .74% with 215 students in isolation—but many students were not conscientious about testing when they returned to campus so those numbers could be misleading.
Sorry if I appear rude to you. I’m just trying to figure out whether an airline should knowingly allow a passenger infected with Covid to fly, and not inform other passengers about it. You don’t seem to think this is important to the other passengers. For the colleges, I agree with you that they don’t have the right to prevent infected students from flying but I think they do have the responsibility to advise the infected students not to fly, and perhaps, provide alternative accommodations to these students so they don’t have to fly while still infectious.
I suspect that adults who make the conscious choice to break their state-mandated isolation will not be invited back after the break, as they had pre-agreed when they started their academic year at a location that they fully knew to be out of driving range. If they can’t follow the rules/health-orders (with law effect), they can’t be trusted on campus.
Can’t speak for other schools, but at Barnard you are moved into special isolation apartments, are assigned runners so you don’t have to leave your room, and are assigned a case manager for the duration.
Winter-break is three weeks, not everyone is able to travel/afford travel during this time (and that’s not just international students). Colleges have always needed to accommodate those housing situations, even if it meant that those students were temporarily “consolidated” into one building (e.g. to reduce energy cost, or allow renovations/repair work being performed).
So it’s really just an “expansion” of something that’s likely already in place.
Naturally, during those times, food might have to be sourced outside of dining plans.
Frankly, given the amounts spent for student athletics in normal years, I rather see them spend a fraction of those budgets on managing a health crisis “by the book” so that disruptions to academics be minimized.
I would be surprised if ‘runners’ will be working on christmas day, for example. Regardless, I don’t believe many schools will go to the mat to require a covid positive student to stay on campus during break.
Nor should they. Adult students might choose to drive themselves home, stay with family nearby, check into a hotel…just like the rest of us, or those living off campus.
South Carolina has a governor’s mandate not to treat vax and not-vax differently, so schools that are testing students are testing all. Clemson it’s weekly for students and every 2 weeks for faculty/staff. U of SC is monthly for all. Both public. I’m not sure about the other state schools’ requirements.
No worries. I won’t attempt to assume what is important to other passengers. I only point out that the risk information is out there, and absent any requirement from the airlines to submit a negative Covid test prior to flying, we’re left to rely on the conscience of those we don’t even know to make responsible decisions. And as Mwfan pointed out, many airlines will contract trace if they now about a Covid case on a flight - it’s the “knowing” part that’s a little grey.
I just checked and the Bowdoin students signed an agreement saying they will follow isolation protocol or face disciplinary action. The question will be - what is the isolation protocol once finals are over?
You probably would have to look up their isolation protocol for the academic year. I’d be shocked, if it made any reference to finals. In fact, if I were the attorney drafting such a policy, I’d be certain to incorporate public health mandates of the locality/state “by reference” - which also will not care about “finals”.
If the student remains “in town”, they likely would be required to continue to follow the public health protocols with respect to isolation, as pre-agreed. At best, once the campus shuts down, a student no longer is asking to “access campus”, in which case adherence to public travel policies might become the “controlling” factor.
I think they made the exact statement pretty nebulous. Just says “protocol”. I guess they could change their protocol around isolation at any point like how Cornell moved to letting kids out with two negative tests. I have to think they’ll do everything they can to allow kids to leave if they can prove they are no longer contagious.
At Bowdoin, how many F or INC grades will occur because students are forced into isolation by a positive test and are unable to take an in-person final exam (or complete a final project that cannot be done while in isolation)?
That’s . . . great that it is in line with what’s found elsewhere, but 79 active cases is a significant jump up from the rate that they, on their own campus, had detected for nearly all of the semester.