Provost Hal Stern released a statement on Jan. 21 confirming the continuation of plans to begin in-person instruction on Jan. 31. UCI had already experienced multiple two-week extensions of online learning since the original announcement.
UCI’s communication with the student body, student government and faculty on the transition back to campus has allegedly been lacking with the decision based scientific data unclear, and the approach to returning to campus being non-inclusive, inconsistent and indecisive.
On that same day, shortly after Provost Stern’s statement, Associated Graduate Students (AGS) and Associated Students (ASUCI) released a joint statement in response to Stern. Stern suggested that the decision was based on “broad consultation with the community, including discussions with Academic Senate leadership, student government leadership, campus health leadership and university administrators.” However, AGS and ASUCI claim that they were never consulted. In an interview with the New University, AGS President Connor Strobel expressed the student government’s deep frustration with this false claim.
The New University also spoke with AGS’s VP of Finance and sociology Ph.D. candidate Canton Winer.
“The university’s communication throughout the pandemic has been unclear to say the least. That’s been a theme in their communications throughout the pandemic, and that’s a shared opinion of many on AGS and of many of our constituents who have told us that they’re frustrated by the lack of transparency and detail in the University’s communications,” Winer said.
Winer emphasized that AGS had “urged the university repeatedly to consult student government leadership,” yet claims they were never consulted.
Consultation and clear communication with members of our community is imperative, especially on an issue that involves student’s safety and health. In addition to allegedly failing to consult members of the community, UCI’s statement on returning to campus lacks a clear scientific basis.
Stern claimed that the decision was based on “a recent decline in the Omicron surge, in both case counts and positivity rate,” and ultimately, “[COVID-19] models predict that this will continue.” It’s also never specified what “models” Stern is referencing. In contrast, Chancellor Howard Gillman’s statement on Jan 6. explained that UCI was remaining online due to both high case numbers at UCI and in Orange County as well as a shortage in staffing and faculty. However, Stern never addressed what specifically changed about these factors that now make it safe to return to campus.
Without UCI’s scientific basis, the university’s approach only adds to the confusion of the diverse COVID-19 health protocols from other institutions, organizations and services.
These inconsistencies among institution COVID-19 policies deepen public confusion in what kind of activities and behaviors that are considered socially safe, which is key to the success of navigating through the pandemic. With mixed messages being sent about what’s considered “safe” behavior, the public becomes indecisive and is left to make ill-advised decisions on mask wearing, indoor and outdoor gatherings and opening of businesses and services. For UCI to withhold their scientific evidence, this confusion on “safe” behavior during the pandemic is only heightened.
Additionally, Winer and AGS also expressed concerns with the lack of clear communication on how the university will accommodate people who are disabled or immunocompromised.
Winer has heard from multiple members of the community about their experiences reaching out for accommodations at UCI’s Disability Services Center.
“Some of them have been told yes, and they got accommodations, and that’s fantastic. However, some of them were declined because they did not have a documented disability or for whatever reason, they didn’t meet the criteria,” Winer said.
Winer also shared that there has been no clarification on accommodations for students living with or caring for someone who is disabled, immunocompromised or vulnerable to COVID-19. He argued that the absence of explicit recognition of disabled and immunocompromised people goes against UCI’s claim to be guided by a mission of inclusive excellence.
UCI’s policies have also lacked consistency and decisiveness. In addition to the lack of clarity about why and how we are safely transitioning to in-person instruction, UCI has been late in informing the student body about what model of learning UCI will implement, which has harmful and disruptive consequences to the learning of students.
Whether or not UCI decides to go fully in-person, entirely remote or settle for a hyflex model, it’s important that UCI commits to a plan and communicates that clearly. A consistent learning environment will allow students to settle into classes and figure out their study habits without the pressure of having to suddenly adapt. Despite the decision to open in-person learning on Jan. 31, professors are still scrambling to make choices of their own to take this approach or remain in the remote learning mode, deepening the hardship on students and the teaching staff.
Winer supported the hyflex model, which will give “students the choice to continue learning online if that’s what’s safest for them.”
He also shared that the AGS Board have heard from many international students who are currently abroad that it wouldn’t be conceivable for their return for the reopening.
Winer shared that there were three main actions that AGS believed needed immediate action by the university. The first was for Stern to publicly apologize for his false statement about consulting student government. The second was for the university to actually cooperate with the student government on this issue. The final was to create a model of universal accommodation.
When navigating a situation that involves the health and learning of so many people, UCI needs to consult with community members and communicate more timely and explicitly the measures in which they are taking to ensure all students are accommodated. It’s also just as imperative for them to share what scientific basis they are making these decisions. The largely uncertain and vague communication by the administration on UCI’s return to campus plan has been ultimately disruptive to the learning of students who are forced to remain flexible to dramatic readjustments in their study habits, class structure, living situations and schedules; it has also been harmful to teaching, as professors have had to redesign in-person class plans to fit the online format at the last minute.
Hopefully UCI can begin to take these issues into account as the university continues to navigate this pandemic.
Erika Cao is an Opinion Staff Writer. She can be reached at caoea@uci.edu.