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

[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?

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.

I’m not sure what point you guys are arguing about. In the disparate impact analysis the defendant has to show that the policy in question is legitimate. Speed cameras are likely legitimate. Vaccination mandates - where vaccines barely impact transmission or infection, and almost all kids have natural immunity anyway - is a truly harder case to prove. By no means would I ever say its a slam dunk, but it’s a case that would be brought for any other policy that kicks 40% of black kids out of school.

[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?

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.

Your point is? There are suggestions that aliens are real and have taken over Joe Biden, too. (Does it surprise you that newsone thinks black people are getting screwed?).

Note that cameras still stand and no suit has overcome the burden of illegal discrimination. Cameras are an interesting case because where they are located could create a problem. For instance, if the were only placed in predominantly black neighborhoods that could be a problem. If they were on every street corner in DC that would be a much harder case to make. And so it is with vaccines. The vaccines requirement applies universally, free vaccines are available universally. Your example illustrates how silly it is to just scream "discrimination" or "disparate impact". This requires thinking and analysis, not just catch phrases and "every one says" or "lots of people say".

[Anonymous]

The thing I'm actually most worried/frustrated about with the vaccine requirement is the situation in which (1) DCPS does not enforce the requirement (despite saying that vaccines are required and the requirement being on the books) and (2) a bunch of small charter schools, fearing the consequences of being out of compliance, do.

I don't have time to dig back into the history of how this requirement came to pass (probably thanks to those COVID crank parents and the council?), but someone in DC health or DC government needs to issue an emergency order suspending the requirement ASAP.

[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?

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.

I’m not sure what point you guys are arguing about. In the disparate impact analysis the defendant has to show that the policy in question is legitimate. Speed cameras are likely legitimate. Vaccination mandates - where vaccines barely impact transmission or infection, and almost all kids have natural immunity anyway - is a truly harder case to prove. By no means would I ever say its a slam dunk, but it’s a case that would be brought for any other policy that kicks 40% of black kids out of school.

I see what you did there.

[Anonymous]

There has always been a vaccine requirement for DCPS, there have always been lots of Black students with no proof of required vaccinations, DCPS has never barred these students from school.

This will not change.

[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?

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.

I’m not sure what point you guys are arguing about. In the disparate impact analysis the defendant has to show that the policy in question is legitimate. Speed cameras are likely legitimate. Vaccination mandates - where vaccines barely impact transmission or infection, and almost all kids have natural immunity anyway - is a truly harder case to prove. By no means would I ever say its a slam dunk, but it’s a case that would be brought for any other policy that kicks 40% of black kids out of school.

I see what you did there.

DP, the bolded is accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There has always been a vaccine requirement for DCPS, there have always been lots of Black students with no proof of required vaccinations, DCPS has never barred these students from school.

This will not change.

What about charters, as we are in a charter thread?

[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?

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.

I’m not sure what point you guys are arguing about. In the disparate impact analysis the defendant has to show that the policy in question is legitimate. Speed cameras are likely legitimate. Vaccination mandates - where vaccines barely impact transmission or infection, and almost all kids have natural immunity anyway - is a truly harder case to prove. By no means would I ever say its a slam dunk, but it’s a case that would be brought for any other policy that kicks 40% of black kids out of school.

I see what you did there.

Not sure what you are suggesting. Given the serious harm caused by excluding black kids from school, DC will have to make a really persuasive case for why blackkids can be kept out of school. The effectiveness of the vaccine and natural immunity are scientific matters that would be addressed in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I'm actually most worried/frustrated about with the vaccine requirement is the situation in which (1) DCPS does not enforce the requirement (despite saying that vaccines are required and the requirement being on the books) and (2) a bunch of small charter schools, fearing the consequences of being out of compliance, do.

I don't have time to dig back into the history of how this requirement came to pass (probably thanks to those COVID crank parents and the council?), but someone in DC health or DC government needs to issue an emergency order suspending the requirement ASAP.

I think you’re right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I'm actually most worried/frustrated about with the vaccine requirement is the situation in which (1) DCPS does not enforce the requirement (despite saying that vaccines are required and the requirement being on the books) and (2) a bunch of small charter schools, fearing the consequences of being out of compliance, do.

I don't have time to dig back into the history of how this requirement came to pass (probably thanks to those COVID crank parents and the council?), but someone in DC health or DC government needs to issue an emergency order suspending the requirement ASAP.

Also, if DC is going to only selectively enforce certain covid rules and not others, then that suggests that there's no reason to follow any of the rules.

Disparate enforcement of rules seems....problematic. Which rules get enforced and on whom, to what end? Seems like there might be legal issues there as well.

[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?

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.

I’m not sure what point you guys are arguing about. In the disparate impact analysis the defendant has to show that the policy in question is legitimate. Speed cameras are likely legitimate. Vaccination mandates - where vaccines barely impact transmission or infection, and almost all kids have natural immunity anyway - is a truly harder case to prove. By no means would I ever say its a slam dunk, but it’s a case that would be brought for any other policy that kicks 40% of black kids out of school.

Exactly. It might not win. But a lot of people would be talking about it. Organizations - government and not - would be having lawyers draft letters. Press releases would be send. Reporters would be called. This would be an extremely big deal nationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I'm actually most worried/frustrated about with the vaccine requirement is the situation in which (1) DCPS does not enforce the requirement (despite saying that vaccines are required and the requirement being on the books) and (2) a bunch of small charter schools, fearing the consequences of being out of compliance, do.

I don't have time to dig back into the history of how this requirement came to pass (probably thanks to those COVID crank parents and the council?), but someone in DC health or DC government needs to issue an emergency order suspending the requirement ASAP.

WHY? Please expound on why this vaccine shouldn't be required, like others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I'm actually most worried/frustrated about with the vaccine requirement is the situation in which (1) DCPS does not enforce the requirement (despite saying that vaccines are required and the requirement being on the books) and (2) a bunch of small charter schools, fearing the consequences of being out of compliance, do.

I don't have time to dig back into the history of how this requirement came to pass (probably thanks to those COVID crank parents and the council?), but someone in DC health or DC government needs to issue an emergency order suspending the requirement ASAP.

WHY? Please expound on why this vaccine shouldn't be required, like others.

DP. Because it doesn't prevent transmission. So it has no impact on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I'm actually most worried/frustrated about with the vaccine requirement is the situation in which (1) DCPS does not enforce the requirement (despite saying that vaccines are required and the requirement being on the books) and (2) a bunch of small charter schools, fearing the consequences of being out of compliance, do.

I don't have time to dig back into the history of how this requirement came to pass (probably thanks to those COVID crank parents and the council?), but someone in DC health or DC government needs to issue an emergency order suspending the requirement ASAP.

WHY? Please expound on why this vaccine shouldn't be required, like others.

DP. Because it doesn't prevent transmission. So it has no impact on others.

e.g., https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

"Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.”"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I'm actually most worried/frustrated about with the vaccine requirement is the situation in which (1) DCPS does not enforce the requirement (despite saying that vaccines are required and the requirement being on the books) and (2) a bunch of small charter schools, fearing the consequences of being out of compliance, do.

I don't have time to dig back into the history of how this requirement came to pass (probably thanks to those COVID crank parents and the council?), but someone in DC health or DC government needs to issue an emergency order suspending the requirement ASAP.

WHY? Please expound on why this vaccine shouldn't be required, like others.

Because the vaccines are still under Emergency Use Authorization—not full approval—for children under 12.

And because they do little to improve health for kids.