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