M
asks, and the mask
mandates
that
often
come along with them,
have been a flashpoint of contention
for close to two years. They have
become
extremely
politicized,
often seen as a quick indicator of
ideological
allegiance.
Policies
legislating these mandates have
been the opposite of uniform,
with laws varying not only state
by state, but city by city and often
school district by school district.
America is at the point where
governmental policy surrounding
masks, specifically for children
younger than 12, ought to be
uniform. With emerging data on the
reality of COVID-19 infections in
schools, readily available vaccines
and a notable decrease in COVID-
19 cases, the sound policy is clear.
It is time to do away with mask
mandates for kids in schools.
I must preface this all by stating
unequivocally that this is not from
an anti-mask, or even a blanket anti-
mask-mandate,
standpoint.
The
data is clear that well-fitted medical-
grade masks are extremely effective
in slowing the spread of COVID-19.
Moreover, mandates have at many
times been sound policy. Mask
mandates were unfortunately quite
necessary before the widespread
distribution of the various COVID-
19 vaccines. This piece is not meant
to diminish the pandemic that has
taken the lives of over 900 thousand
people in the U.S. alone. Rather,
this call is centered around cost-
benefit analysis in tandem with new
information on COVID infections
in schools, a changing environment
and comparative policy with other
venues where people socialize —
such as bars and restaurants.
On Feb. 14, Washington, D.C.
Mayor Muriel Bowser announced
that the city would soon be ending
its vaccination requirement for
indoor businesses, along with the
vast majority of mask mandates.
No
longer
would
masks
be
required in restaurants, sports
and entertainment venues, gyms,
churches and the vast majority
of other indoor locations, with
few
exceptions.
Unfortunately,
one of those lone exceptions was
for schools. Indeed, six-year-olds
sitting in class for eight hours a
day would be bound to wearing
a mask, while grown adults were
free to rip off the mask in crowded
bars. Indoor stadiums packed with
tens of thousands? No mask. But
for those little kids comparatively
spread out in their classroom of 20,
the burden was still there.
Though I fully support the
loosening of restrictions, for Bowser
to stop at schools in the way she
did is nothing short of infuriating,
and it defies science. This follows
a nationwide trend, one which we
should be deeply worried about.
Children in this cohort have been
proven to be less susceptible to
severe infection and death from
COVID-19 than every other age
group. Every kid five years and
over has safe and extraordinarily
effective vaccines readily available.
Schools do not have the density
that venues like large concerts and
sporting events do. These factors
alone make decisions like Bowser’s
terribly misguided, and furthermore
should be reason enough to drop the
mandates entirely, regardless of their
presence in other localities.
Most kids in schools are wearing
cloth
masks,
which
with
the
emergence of Omicron have been
rendered almost if not entirely
useless. Little kids often struggle
to keep a mask on their faces, and it
can be extremely hard for teachers
to enforce. One-way masking is
effective, so those who cannot be
vaccinated, or who have insanely
decided not to get vaccinated,
still have the means to protect
themselves regardless. COVID-19
cases have absolutely plummeted,
dropping 90% since January. Lastly,
and
maybe
most
importantly,
data are beginning to show quite
clearly that there is a real adverse
effect to masking of kids in schools.
Psychological effects are real, and
aspects like brain development can
be hindered. Personal interaction
is more difficult, and kids often
struggle to remember faces in
schools, lack emotional connections
and more. Academic issues — for
example, the inability to read lips for
kids learning language — also exist.
Moreover, the net benefit of
mandatory masking for little kids in
schools has never been consistently
clear. In fact, the World Health
Organization explicitly discourages
masking those five and under,
and they make a point for those
aged 6-11 that it should be decided
on based on relevant data at the
time. At this time, the information
sided against mandating masks for
children in schools.
As a recent Atlantic article also
pointed out, the extremely few
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention studies they have long
used as the crux of their argument
for mandatory masking in schools
have serious flaws, to the point
where their conclusions are only
vaguely, if at all, supported by their
own data. Take, for example, that
one of their studies found masking
teachers to cause a statistically
significant decrease in COVID
transmissions. The same could not
be demonstrated for students. Or
the one in Arizona, which did not
account for vaccinations. Some
schools in the sample weren’t even
open, and specific case counts were
not even collected. There have been
a total of zero randomized trials
looking at the efficacy of masking
with children.
One of the main problems
government officials and health
agencies have had throughout the
pandemic is their lack of a clear
barometer for when measures need
to be taken and when they can be
relaxed. Off ramps — conditions
that need to be met before the
relaxation of measures — are vague,
if not nonexistent. When mandates
are reimposed, for example, when
a new variant emerges where
early data is worrisome and its full
effects may not be known, or when
cases spike up drastically, they
have been based on the emerging
data. The inverse has not been true.
Municipalities are often reluctant
to meaningfully relax measures
after a wave of COVID has passed,
instead leaving their — largely
vaccinated — citizens to languish in
the precautions of last year’s surge.
As Dr. Leana Wen pointed out,
when you continue to impose the
same ‘red alert’-like restrictions,
and those restrictions are not
loosened when new data emerges,
you
lose
leverage
to
impose
restrictions when they are actually
needed most down the line. We
are in a clear position of vast
improvement,
where
masking
needs to be loosened, especially for
little kids in schools, who are safest
from COVID-19 and yet face the
most adverse effects of constant
masking.
Compared to many, younger kids
have had an especially hard time
dealing with the societal effects of
COVID-19. The lack of in-person
schooling, interaction with kids their
age and unwarranted restrictions
in which they often bear more
responsibility than any other age
group has been deeply damaging.
The
hypocrisy
of
school
and
government leaders who continue
to implement mask mandates in
schools, then themselves do not
follow those rules, is insulting to the
very kids they claim they care about.
When masking is not required
for large indoor events like concerts
and
sporting
events,
where
individuals are much more tightly
packed than kids in schools and
in all likelihood are composed of
more vulnerable age groups, it is
insulting to kids who must still
endure the restrictions. Adults, who
should have no problem keeping a
mask on all day, who do not suffer
the same sort of psychological
and learning effects of masks, are
free of restrictions. Kids, the most
vulnerable population to mandatory
masking, are not.
D
ear
Elizabeth,
I’m
struggling.
One
of
my best guy friends
has
recently
been
making
some
homophobic
comments
that are not hateful but are
clearly rooted in some sort of
discomfort with sexuality as a
whole. I don’t want to push him
to talk about it but I feel like
its something that is making
everyone uncomfortable — a lot
of our friends have also pointed
it out — and I want him to be
able to talk it through and grow
in a healthy way. Do you think
it’s my/our place to address
this? – S ’22 (He/him)
Hello! I think this is a
common issue people have
with their friends and knowing
when it is or isn’t their place
to say something. It can be
uncomfortable
to
confront
a friend and start a serious
conversation
with
them.
However, if you start the
conversation from a place of
wanting to talk through the
problem, then you can get
your point across in a healthy
and productive way. It may
be hard for your friend to not
be
immediately
defensive,
so I recommend reminding
them that you know it is not
on purpose and that their
intentions are not to cause harm
or tear apart their character.
Overall, I think you/any of the
other friends that have noticed
this issue would be helping this
person out by stepping in and
expressing the discomfort their
comments can cause because
otherwise those comments will
continue to make more people
uncomfortable or have greater
harmful impacts.
I have a crush on someone
on my project team. Is it ok to
ask them out even if we work
closely together? – A ’22 (He/
him)
Great question! I think that if
the project is temporary, then it
would be best to ask closer to
the end of the project or when
it is over so that if something
does go poorly, it doesn’t impact
the work or work environment.
However, if it is a long-term
project and you are picking up
signals that they are interested
as well, you could ask them to
do something more casual like
coffee or lunch and take it from
there!
I’m a sophomore in college
and I’ve never dated or been
in a relationship. I am not in
any hurry really for something
serious but I feel like everyone
around me is always talking
about dating, hooking up, or
their
significant
other.
But
I don’t really know or am
friends with any guys and I
am too afraid to use a dating
app because I just want a nice
wholesome guy. So I need advice
on how to meet guys when I
don’t really interact with many
and how to get into the “dating
world.” – K ’24 (She/her)
Thank you for writing in, I
have a lot of friends in college
who
have
struggled
with
this same problem! It can be
hard to meet new people once
everyone is in their routine. I
recommend joining new clubs
or sitting next to new people
in
class
and
introducing
yourself! Most of the college
relationships I know started in
class, through dorms or mutual
friends. I also recommend not
putting too much pressure
on yourself to have a ton of
dating experiences in college.
Everyone has different levels
of experience and it doesn’t
mean you are behind just
because you haven’t dated
anyone seriously yet. I am a
firm believer that the best
things happen when you least
expect it, so I would join
clubs and events that you are
interested in for yourself and
then if you meet somebody
through it, it’s a plus!
E
very year, herds of pimply
eighth
graders
file
anxiously into classrooms
across the country to take one of
several special exams. The stakes
are high. Students who perform
well on these exams might earn a
coveted seat at one of their city’s
selective
public
high
schools.
Graduates of these schools go
on to matriculate at top colleges
and universities, including the
University of Michigan. Research
from The Daily found that in 2019 a
significant number of out-of-state
freshmen came from several of
these schools: Bronx Science and
Brooklyn Tech in New York City;
Lane Tech and Walter Payton in
Chicago; Thomas Jefferson High
School for Science and Technology
in Alexandria, Virginia.
Selective public high schools
(SHSs) are some of the best public
schools in the country. They
provide an extraordinary catalog of
instructional and extracurricular
resources, create spaces for high-
caliber students to learn and
socialize with one another and are
considered a foothold for upward
economic
mobility,
especially
among
working-class,
Asian-
American immigrant households.
They also admit a small number
of Black and Hispanic kids —
Chicago Public Schools’ system is
the only slight outlier. Stuyvesant
High School in New York City, for
example, admitted only eight Black
students in 2021 out of 749 spots,
even though Black students make
up 26% of NYC’s public school
system.
Initiatives
to
increase
the
number of Black and Hispanic
students attending SHSs have been
numerous and often politically
controversial.
Bill
de
Blasio,
former New York City mayor, tried
unsuccessfully to eliminate the
entrance exam at several of NYC’s
schools in 2019. New Yorkers
pushed back forcefully against the
idea, killing de Blasio’s hopes for
the New York Legislature to pass
the measure.
In 2020, Thomas Jefferson
High School for Science and
Technology
instituted
a
new
merit-based lottery admissions
system. The school eliminated its
entrance exam, began considering
applicants’ socioeconomic status
and mandated that at least 1.5% of
students from each middle school
in the region be admitted. As a
consequence of the policy, the
racial composition of the current
freshman
class
is
markedly
different than previous years.
The percentage of Asian students
admitted decreased from 73% to
54%. With respect to economic
diversity,
25%
of
students
offered a spot were classified as
economically
disadvantaged.
Notably, the average GPA of
the newest class did not change
significantly.
That last item did not seem
important to the community,
however. Outcry at the first
consequence
was
swift
and
serious: a group of parents quickly
filed a lawsuit alleging that the
policy
unfairly
discriminated
against Asian students. In a
similar series of events, three San
Francisco school board members
were recalled last week, due in
part to the new merit-based lottery
admissions system put in place at
their district’s SHS, Lowell High
School.
I find myself agreeing with the
parents’ arguing against lottery
systems, to an extent. The issue at
stake is similar to the one raised
in Students for Fair Admissions v.
President and Fellows of Harvard
College, at least with respect to
the relationship between Asian
students and admissions to elite
schools. Using data on New York
City’s SHSAT as a proxy, Asian
students are more likely to take
the SHSAT and perform better
on it than other racial groups, as
evidenced by the higher number of
enrollment offers they receive.
Admissions
criteria
that
devalue test scores are implicitly
discriminating
against
Asian
students. In New York, Census
data shows Asians have the lowest
median income in the city, and
therefore do not, by default, have
an unfair economic advantage over
the students who would benefit
from the policy change.
A partial explanation for the
success of Asian students in NYC
are the grueling test prep classes
their parents are more likely to
enroll them in to prepare for the
SHSAT. That, to me, indicates that
even if Asian students perform
better on tests, the means by which
they do so are drastic. It shows
that the education system is failing
these students just as poorly as
students who don’t suffer through
test prep classes and score lower.
As I wrote in an earlier column,
America’s
hyper-fixation
on
testing tends to crowd out other
conversations about our education
system and about other proposals
to improve it.
The argument on behalf of
reforming SHS admissions rests
on two main planks: one, that the
reformed system would increase
the number of Black and Hispanic
high-achieving, low-SES students
at SPHSs, and two, that these
students
would
benefit
from
attending these schools. TJHSST
and Lowell High School support
the first claim. The number of Black
and Hispanic students at both
schools
increased
immediately
after the merit lotteries were
introduced.
The second is less clear. A
study conducted by researchers
at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis
found
negligible
differences in academic outcomes
between students who fell just
under or just above the cutoff
score to get into Chicago’s SHSs.
Distressingly, the GPAs of students
who barely made the cutoff were
ultimately lower. The authors
qualify this finding with the fact
that GPA measures achievement
somewhat
relative
to
other
students, but even so, that evidence
suggests academic gains for these
students are marginal, if anything.
Competing against students who
come from better backgrounds
shifts students who don’t lower
in the grade distribution, as one
would expect. They did find,
however, that students at SHSs felt
safer and more respected. They
also generally reported a higher
level of well-being.
A separate study examining low-
achieving middle school students
in New York City found that these
students preferred to attend high
schools that were geographically
closer, rather than schools with
the highest reported educational
outcomes. I interpret those findings
to mean that families and students
balance considerations beyond just
academics. The physical burden of a
long commute to another school and
the emotional tax of transitioning to
an unfamiliar social environment
are weighty concerns.
We would like to imagine that
institutions such as selective public
high schools are one of the last
few bastions of equal opportunity
in this country and therefore
inviolable. The belief that entrance
exams serve as an impartial,
even somewhat moral, sorting
mechanism is difficult to challenge.
They do rank students efficiently,
even if students who score lower
are similarly intelligent to those
who score higher. Explanations for
score differentials are numerous,
however, and mostly not related
to intelligence. Different levels of
income, different primary school
resources,
non-English
first
language and cultural attitudes
toward test preparation are some
of the many factors that come into
play alongside intellect. Putting
these tests on a pedestal as proof of
a fair education system is a shallow
argument.
A system that forces students
to put themselves through intense
mental anguish for the slim chance
of admittance to a high school
where attendance requires them
to leave their community and their
friends and start over in a new
environment can have negative
consequences. They might begin
to develop imposter syndrome
because they are, for the first time,
surrounded by kids who get better
grades (because those kids went
to a better middle school); this is
a bad system. Efforts to reform
public education should not be
focused on moving kids to better
schools, but instead should aim
to move better schools to kids.
That will require asking hard
questions about how we fund
our public schools. That might
require resources concentrated in
SHSs to be distributed, effectively
destroying the concept of SHSs as
we view them today. Perhaps that’s
okay.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
Wednesday, March 9, 2022 — 9
We need to rethink the value of
selective public high schools
ALEX YEE
Opinion Columnist
Design by Maddy Leja, Opinion Cartoonist
Morning classes:
In one ear, out the other
Advice Column:
Group project romance
ELIZABETH PEPPERCORN
Opinion Advice Columnist
The time has come: end mask mandates for children
DEVON HESANO
Opinion Columnist