Charters: What covid precautions has your school announced for the upcoming year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB ended the school year with 20% asymptomatic testing + masks. Masks were technically only mandatory if the community level was in "low" and there was something like 5 or fewer cases at school in a 7-day period. Which meant we had one week of mask-optional.

The LAMB summer camp required masks, full stop.

Parents weren't really allowed in the building, which meant there was some loss of community. Zoom events just don't do it.

They've announced that they will send out info later, but I'm imagining it'll be more of the same in the Fall.

LAMB will mask for medium + high.

Unclear if they are stopping asymptomatic testing (by omission it sounds like they will, but they could always just starting testing kids without notifying parents; I wouldn't put it past them).

Parents aren't allowed in building if not vaccinated.

Kids who are vaccinated don't need to quarantine after exposure, kids that are not vaccinated can do TTS after exposure.

That is pure nonsense. What??

No explanation. Obviously goes against CDC. But charter schools admins are public health experts, remember.

Posted ironically, I assume? You get that you (and most of DCUM) purport to be public health experts ALL DAMN DAY (see, all of DCUM for the last 2 years).

Yes, posted ironically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

Not being a lawyer, I googled (LOL I know) and pretty sure policies with disparate impacts by race are indeed discriminatory.

e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

Not being a lawyer, I googled (LOL I know) and pretty sure policies with disparate impacts by race are indeed discriminatory.

e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7

this lawyer congratulates your google skills. that’s exactly right.

if anyone cared to bring the case, it would be a serious one. I think the quarantine policies were the big problem last year, but those went away. if DCPS actually excludes kids on the basis of vaccination this year, then we’ll see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

You are confusing discrimination BASED on race of protected class with disparate impact. There's a huge body of law on how one does discrimination testing. Your IRS example is nonsense since there are not more black people than white in the US. There are more black people than white in DCPS. There are going to be more black people than white impacted. That's not the threshold.

I'd also note that the vaccination analysis doesn't start with kids being excluded from school. It starts with the vaccination requirement. Are vaccinations available to all classes equally? The downstream impact of exclusion from school is not what is determinative in this case, it is the vaccination status, and that driven by access to vaccines (free and everywhere). The question is whether the underlying policy is illegally discriminating. No one is saying only black people need to get vaccinated.

Here's a thought exercise: Let's say that black families in DC decided that driving while intoxicated was safer (or as safe) as driving while sober. And because of that the black community decided in large numbers to drive drunk and as a consequence of that cultural reality the number of black drivers arrested for DUI skyrocketed. The policy against DUI is a public policy one designed to make roads (and sidewalks) safer for everyone. By your logic if the black community decided that driving while drunk was fine and as a consequence there was disparate impact, we'd have to change laws and allow drunk driving. What we have in vaccinations is a community that is vaccine hesitant. There are historical reasons for it, but the underlying anti-vaccine rhetoric is crap. No different than MAGA world white trash anti-vaxxers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB ended the school year with 20% asymptomatic testing + masks. Masks were technically only mandatory if the community level was in "low" and there was something like 5 or fewer cases at school in a 7-day period. Which meant we had one week of mask-optional.

The LAMB summer camp required masks, full stop.

Parents weren't really allowed in the building, which meant there was some loss of community. Zoom events just don't do it.

They've announced that they will send out info later, but I'm imagining it'll be more of the same in the Fall.

LAMB will mask for medium + high.

Unclear if they are stopping asymptomatic testing (by omission it sounds like they will, but they could always just starting testing kids without notifying parents; I wouldn't put it past them).

Parents aren't allowed in building if not vaccinated.

Kids who are vaccinated don't need to quarantine after exposure, kids that are not vaccinated can do TTS after exposure.

That is pure nonsense. What??

No explanation. Obviously goes against CDC. But charter schools admins are public health experts, remember.

It follows the CDC recommendation that were in place until August 10. DC DOH hasn't even updated their policies - they still recommend quarantines; last update to their policy was June 13. If the DOH, whose literal job is to update health guidance, hasn't updated their guidance yet, I'm going to cut my charter some slack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

Not being a lawyer, I googled (LOL I know) and pretty sure policies with disparate impacts by race are indeed discriminatory.

e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7

this lawyer congratulates your google skills. that’s exactly right.

if anyone cared to bring the case, it would be a serious one. I think the quarantine policies were the big problem last year, but those went away. if DCPS actually excludes kids on the basis of vaccination this year, then we’ll see what happens.

This lawyer hopes to god you don't practice in this area because you're not qualified. Start with the premise that whether something is discriminatory DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL. Beyond me how you don't know that. Also, if you had any idea what you were talking about (or bothered to read the damn link) you'd know that things can have disparate impact and still be legal. You just need to conduct the analysis.

[Anonymous]

Of course policies causing disparate racial impact are not necessarily illegal.

But in a week, DCPS is theoretically going to deny an education to 40% of black middle and high school students because they didn't get a vaccine that in no way prevents outbreaks. And the only people suing or even talking about this are anti vaxxers. Not civil rights organizations and not the DOJ of a Democratic administration. That's extremely notable! There were federal lawsuits over disparate racial impact of disciplinary policies, and those had much smaller effects, but on this it's crickets? That should make you think about wtf is going on here and what the priorities and incentives of people who theoretically care about these issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

You are confusing discrimination BASED on race of protected class with disparate impact. There's a huge body of law on how one does discrimination testing. Your IRS example is nonsense since there are not more black people than white in the US. There are more black people than white in DCPS. There are going to be more black people than white impacted. That's not the threshold.

I'd also note that the vaccination analysis doesn't start with kids being excluded from school. It starts with the vaccination requirement. Are vaccinations available to all classes equally? The downstream impact of exclusion from school is not what is determinative in this case, it is the vaccination status, and that driven by access to vaccines (free and everywhere). The question is whether the underlying policy is illegally discriminating. No one is saying only black people need to get vaccinated.

Here's a thought exercise: Let's say that black families in DC decided that driving while intoxicated was safer (or as safe) as driving while sober. And because of that the black community decided in large numbers to drive drunk and as a consequence of that cultural reality the number of black drivers arrested for DUI skyrocketed. The policy against DUI is a public policy one designed to make roads (and sidewalks) safer for everyone. By your logic if the black community decided that driving while drunk was fine and as a consequence there was disparate impact, we'd have to change laws and allow drunk driving. What we have in vaccinations is a community that is vaccine hesitant. There are historical reasons for it, but the underlying anti-vaccine rhetoric is crap. No different than MAGA world white trash anti-vaxxers.

absolutely wrong. the analysis *starts* with more black kids being excluded from school than white kids due to a DCPS policy. Then DCPS has to show that the vax policy is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

Not being a lawyer, I googled (LOL I know) and pretty sure policies with disparate impacts by race are indeed discriminatory.

e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7

this lawyer congratulates your google skills. that’s exactly right.

if anyone cared to bring the case, it would be a serious one. I think the quarantine policies were the big problem last year, but those went away. if DCPS actually excludes kids on the basis of vaccination this year, then we’ll see what happens.

This lawyer hopes to god you don't practice in this area because you're not qualified. Start with the premise that whether something is discriminatory DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL. Beyond me how you don't know that. Also, if you had any idea what you were talking about (or bothered to read the damn link) you'd know that things can have disparate impact and still be legal. You just need to conduct the analysis.

Lol PP literally linked the DOJ guide on disparate impact, from which you can make a very strong case on vaccine based exclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course policies causing disparate racial impact are not necessarily illegal.

But in a week, DCPS is theoretically going to deny an education to 40% of black middle and high school students because they didn't get a vaccine that in no way prevents outbreaks. And the only people suing or even talking about this are anti vaxxers. Not civil rights organizations and not the DOJ of a Democratic administration. That's extremely notable! There were federal lawsuits over disparate racial impact of disciplinary policies, and those had much smaller effects, but on this it's crickets? That should make you think about wtf is going on here and what the priorities and incentives of people who theoretically care about these issues.

exactly

and let’s not even get into the disparate impact of covid closures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

You are confusing discrimination BASED on race of protected class with disparate impact. There's a huge body of law on how one does discrimination testing. Your IRS example is nonsense since there are not more black people than white in the US. There are more black people than white in DCPS. There are going to be more black people than white impacted. That's not the threshold.

I'd also note that the vaccination analysis doesn't start with kids being excluded from school. It starts with the vaccination requirement. Are vaccinations available to all classes equally? The downstream impact of exclusion from school is not what is determinative in this case, it is the vaccination status, and that driven by access to vaccines (free and everywhere). The question is whether the underlying policy is illegally discriminating. No one is saying only black people need to get vaccinated.

Here's a thought exercise: Let's say that black families in DC decided that driving while intoxicated was safer (or as safe) as driving while sober. And because of that the black community decided in large numbers to drive drunk and as a consequence of that cultural reality the number of black drivers arrested for DUI skyrocketed. The policy against DUI is a public policy one designed to make roads (and sidewalks) safer for everyone. By your logic if the black community decided that driving while drunk was fine and as a consequence there was disparate impact, we'd have to change laws and allow drunk driving. What we have in vaccinations is a community that is vaccine hesitant. There are historical reasons for it, but the underlying anti-vaccine rhetoric is crap. No different than MAGA world white trash anti-vaxxers.

Ok so the words I should have used were "the algorithm DISPROPORTIONATELY catches Black people".

Anyway, re: your DUI example: https://newsone.com/4183104/data-suggests-police-prey-on-drivers-in-black-dc-neighborhoods-to-the-tune-of-467-million/

There are suggestions that speed cameras in DC are discriminatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

Not being a lawyer, I googled (LOL I know) and pretty sure policies with disparate impacts by race are indeed discriminatory.

e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7

this lawyer congratulates your google skills. that’s exactly right.

if anyone cared to bring the case, it would be a serious one. I think the quarantine policies were the big problem last year, but those went away. if DCPS actually excludes kids on the basis of vaccination this year, then we’ll see what happens.

This lawyer hopes to god you don't practice in this area because you're not qualified. Start with the premise that whether something is discriminatory DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL. Beyond me how you don't know that. Also, if you had any idea what you were talking about (or bothered to read the damn link) you'd know that things can have disparate impact and still be legal. You just need to conduct the analysis.

Lol PP literally linked the DOJ guide on disparate impact, from which you can make a very strong case on vaccine based exclusion.

This conclusion is based on your deep understanding of the law on this matter? Funny how DCUM seems to know all about these matters and yet lawyers who practice in this area haven't filed suit. In fact I am aware of only one even in process and it is funded by an anti-vax group that doesn't care about discrimination or equity.

DCUM echo chamber know it all's are the best! You all know everything and you know you are right because other entitled fools who know nothing agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point could there be a legal argument made that adding restrictions to unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids is discrimination? At this point I feel we are really moving towards civil liberty issues.

That’s not how discrimination works.

Discrimination isn't illegal. Discrimination based on protected class is. When I charge a delivery fee for pizza and don't charge people who pick up their own pizza that same fee it is discrimination. And it is legal.

Uh...but if your rule has a disparate impact by race...what then? If the algorithm for IRS audits catches Black people more than white people (just due to filing characteristics correlated with income), is that discriminatory?

Not being a lawyer, I googled (LOL I know) and pretty sure policies with disparate impacts by race are indeed discriminatory.

e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7

this lawyer congratulates your google skills. that’s exactly right.

if anyone cared to bring the case, it would be a serious one. I think the quarantine policies were the big problem last year, but those went away. if DCPS actually excludes kids on the basis of vaccination this year, then we’ll see what happens.

This lawyer hopes to god you don't practice in this area because you're not qualified. Start with the premise that whether something is discriminatory DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL. Beyond me how you don't know that. Also, if you had any idea what you were talking about (or bothered to read the damn link) you'd know that things can have disparate impact and still be legal. You just need to conduct the analysis.

Lol PP literally linked the DOJ guide on disparate impact, from which you can make a very strong case on vaccine based exclusion.

This conclusion is based on your deep understanding of the law on this matter? Funny how DCUM seems to know all about these matters and yet lawyers who practice in this area haven't filed suit. In fact I am aware of only one even in process and it is funded by an anti-vax group that doesn't care about discrimination or equity.

DCUM echo chamber know it all's are the best! You all know everything and you know you are right because other entitled fools who know nothing agree.

That's a terrible argument. Because people don't care about the discriminatory effects of a policy means that discrimination isn't happening? WTF.