Total Pageviews

Thursday, July 23, 2020

The COVID Chronicles: Catholic Social Teaching used to support returning to the classroom...


 

So this blog as a whole is not really about COVID, but lately I keep falling into that rabbit hole, so I have decided to more fully inhabit it.  COVID has taken up more and more of my conscious (and unconscious) life, especially as the opening of school has approached.  Mindful of the observation of an historian about the 1918 flu pandemic that very little writing about that period was done – the surmise was that people were ashamed of their actions so didn’t record them – with some trepidation I will go on marking what I say while recognizing that even now I feel that I may, someday, want to delete these thoughts from the ether.

 

In my last posting on this subject, I was trying to make an argument – it was a weak argument – that fiscally the University should close because we might take on long term expenses if COVID turns out to be a chronic illness and we have to not just manage the short term illnesses of faculty and staff, but their long term difficulties. 

 

Despite the fact that I knew it was a weak and even a bit of a whiny and last minute argument, I made it in a faculty meeting with our representatives to the administration.  A number of other faculty resonated with my article, which was nice, it meant I wasn’t alone, but the leader of our faculty group was unclear what to do with my argument.  Who should I take it to?  Whose province is this?  I asked that he be in contact with administrators and ask questions such as: What are the conditions under which we would not start school?  What are the conditions under which we will pivot to on-line learning?  He agreed to do this.

 

Yesterday he sent out a communique from the COVID task force that stated they were addressing such things as what the criteria would be for students to return home (the Reluctant Son’s position is that this will happen when the first kid dies at Arizona State, then all the schools will hear from parents and send their kids home.  I think this is a reasonable scenario).  Included in the email was a link to a panel discussion of Catholic Social Teaching and COVID.  I was curious, so I watched it.

 

I learned a lot.  Among other things, these folks were taking the position that keeping schools open was good for our brown and black employees – those who are least empowered – because they are the ones most likely to be furloughed if the school is to close.  It is also good for our brown and black students who are more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds and therefore to have more difficulty accessing technology and quiet study space at home than on campus – and that campus jobs are an important source of income while they are in school.  So staying open is a good thing, especially as we think about structural inequalities and systemic racism. 

 

Similarly, in terms of Social Justice, this is a time for us to be refurbishing our curricula to address in the classroom the racial inequalities that have been exposed by COVID.  The greater proportion of black and brown people who have been infected with COVID, and the higher percentage of those who have been infected who have died.  So we should be exposing the ways in which the social and economic structures privilege those of us who are white and chronically – not just at times of COVID – disadvantage those who are brown and black.  I especially agree with this point.  This is, indeed, a moral imperative.

 

But I was struck that all four panelists were speaking from the position that it was an economic reality that schools must start in the fall, and therefore that they will.  They were asking us to empathize with the decision makers who will likely face what they called moral injury – a psychological term they acknowledged they borrowed from the VA which emerged as the part of PTSD that is based on having hurt others in ways that are inconsistent with one’s conscience – we should empathize with the moral injury that will result for administrators when staff and faculty members die as a result of their decisions.  They went on to suggest that we prepare for a period of lamentation – of remembering and atoning for our sins after this crisis has passed – when we acknowledge what we have done.

 

They did this while blaming the administration of the country for their poor handling of the outbreak.  We have become an international pariah, they noted, because we have not taken the steps that are needed to contain the outbreak.  But then they implied that we were disempowered from doing anything but moving ahead in the direction we are going.  We can’t not open, was essentially the position they were taking.  Our leaders, when they mirror national leadership, should receive our pity for what they are being forced to do.

 

There is an article in the Atlantic that accuses schools of preparing to blame the students for negative consequences.  The Catholic Social Teaching group also seemed to be casting blame outside – “We have to do this.”  But they were not saying, “Should we do this?”  “How much (more) of a pay reduction would we have to take to teach online and to weather this storm – to keep our employees on board – including those we would otherwise furlough like the cafeteria workers and the dormitory staff?”  “Is that something we are able to do?”  These questions were not asked.

 

I feel like we are sailing blindly forward into a predictable future (and God, I hope I am wrong), creating moral havens for ourselves as we engage in behavior that is likely harmful to our students, their parents, our staff and faculty, and to society at large.  It seems that we have lost all moral relationship to our role as potential superspreader sites.  As if, in addition to American exceptionalism, we have the exceptionalism of the Ivory tower on our side.

 

As a psychoanalyst – to return to the point of these posts for a moment – I get it that this appears to be a very large exercise in managing the unconscious guilt that is part and parcel of much of our human functioning.  I also get it that there is group think going on (a psychological, not a psychoanalytic term).  But I guess I felt that our exceptionalism – as institutions of higher learning that value scientific knowledge and especially as homes of the Humanities that value self-knowledge – that our exceptionalism would lie in being willing to be what one of my colleagues calls the moral rebel:  The person (or, in this case, people) who are able to say – NO, THIS DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.

 

Sadly, my hopes are not being realized.

To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here.  For a subject based index, link here. 


To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), just enter your email in the subscribe by email box to the right of the text.


For other posts on COVID:
I:       Apocalypse Now  my first posting on COVID-19.
II:      Midnight in Paris  is a jumping off point for more thinking about COVID.  (Also in Movies).
III:    Hans Selye and the Stress Response Syndrome.  COVID becomes more normal... for now.
VI:    Get back in that classroom  Paranoid ruminations.
VII:   Why Shutting Classes Makes Fiscal Sense A weak argument
XIII: Ennui
XIV. Where, Oh Where have my in-person students gone?  Split zoom classes in the age of COVID.
XVIII.    I miss my mask?
IXX.      Bo Burnham's Inside Commentary on the commenter.



No comments:

Post a Comment

The Covenant of Water: Is it a Great Book?

 Covenant of Water, Abraham Verghese, Psychoanalysis, Psychology, Diversity, Quality Is The Covenant of Water a Great Book?   Abraham Vergh...