Conflicting Goods & the COVID-19 Crisis in Reopening US Schools

In Paul A. Cantor’s insightful introduction to the Cambridge University Press Hamlet (2004, 2012), he notes a number of things that made me think of the current conflicts in the US over whether students should return to school in the fall.

Cantor notes the definition of tragedy in Hegel's Aesthetics, not as a conflict of good and evil, but as a conflict of two goods. Cantor notes,

"A straightforward confrontation of good and evil is a fundamentally melodramatic situation. If good triumphs we rejoice, and if evil triumphs we lament, and in either case our sympathies are clear-cut and there is nothing in the outcome to perplex us. But in a dramatic situation in which both sides have a legitimate claim on our sympathies, no outcome can provide a simple resolution of our feelings. No matter which side wins, we feel that something good has been defeated or destroyed." (12)

This may oversimplify, because in Hamlet, we have more than two characters, and more than two teams competing against one another. It's not just the honor and bravery of the dead king set against the Machiavellian scheming of the poisoner/usurper/murderer Claudius. It's also Ophelia, who would like to believe all the "holy vows" of Hamlet and perhaps become queen one day, set against her father's fears that he might lose his job for having a daughter with ambitions above her station, etc.

But the idea is a helpful tool. As with Hamlet, is the US now in a tragedy of conflicting goods?

Conflicting Goods in the US Covid-19 Crisis and Schools
It occurred to me as I read Cantor on Hegel and Hamlet that the Covid-19 crisis in the US could also be described as involving conflicting views of priorities about the greater good. Teachers view themselves as making often view themselves as making sacrifices for the greater good, but there are conflicting views about what the best sacrifice might be: To return to the classroom as asked by federal and many state governments and school districts, or to refuse to return because of the risks to students, their families, colleagues, and their own health and that of their families, and in so doing, perhaps sacrifice their own job security?

The US has not dealt as well in measures against the spread of the pandemic, certainly not as well as many nations in Europe, and most clearly not as well as nations like New Zealand. The weakness in our dealing with the pandemic could be described as a conflict of ideas about what is the highest good:

It's good to work and earn a living if you can, but also good not to be exposed to the virus in the process.
It's good for teachers to protect their students from shooters and from viruses.
It's good to enjoy personal freedom, to choose what clothes to wear - and to wear a mask or not.
It's good for students, teachers, school staff, and families to avoid getting sick and dying in a pandemic.
It's good for economies to function so all can participate.
It's good in the view of the rich to stay rich and get richer.

But some of these goods come into conflict. And some of the players strive to be more honest about things like facts and science, while others quite intentionally strive to deceive as many others as possible in order to achieve their goals.

Sort of like in Hamlet.

If personal freedom is the highest good, then many assumptions and choices follow from that view: People who value their personal freedom most want freedom to go without a mask, to shop and work if one is an employee, or to profit from business activity if one owns a business. They don't want the other good things some others may be striving for to get in the way of their highest good.

If your highest good is to profit from a strong economy and full production at your business, then you want schools ready to "warehouse" children (as some say) so that parents are free to work and spend their money. If students get an education at the same time, yes, this helps in the long term, but for the short term, you want adults and parents free to work and spend.

The more that people in the US embrace these ideas of personal freedom as the greatest good in their priorities, the more the numbers of new cases may rise, until many have been infected, many have died. Let children go back to school, and if some die, and their family members die, then they were probably weak genetically, and may have been a drain on society, some would claim. The strong survive (those without "preexisting conditions" that increase their risk of dying from the pandemic, and increase health insurance costs), and to many with this view, the strong should not have to protect the weak. Social Darwinism benefits the wealthy and strong, and in this view (not mine), it cleanses and strengthens the gene pool.

Or is the highest good to be concerned for the common good, and to make personal sacrifices for it? People who believe this will wear a mask, and tolerate the closing of bars, restaurants, theaters. They will wash hands and keep a safe distance from others.

The more people embrace this idea of the good, the more they make choices consistent with it, and within a relatively short time, the virus might be effectively contained. New Zealand did not have to shut everything down forever. Many nations that have tended more to observe guidelines, for staying at home, for mask wearing, hand washing, and social distancing, are much more ready to restart their economies. The US is not.

Some reply to state and business requests or requirements of mask-wearing by claiming their freedoms and rights are being infringed upon, even that the constitution is being violated. Some claim that teachers who want to do distance learning instead of face-to-face classes are cowards, and that only the maskless risk-takers are brave. Others are "hiding." One man on social media, a colonel retired from the military, told the story of John Glenn, being told that he would not be launched into orbit atop a Redstone booster, but instead, a larger Gemini booster, which had a 50% failure rate. He replied that this meant it had a 50% success rate, as if to say the glass was not half-empty, but half-full. A cute anecdote about his bravery. But by the same logic, if the risk to students, teachers, school staff and families was a 50% survival rate if schools fully reopen, should everyone go back to school or be labeled less brave than John Glenn?

During the first world war, soldiers were issued gas masks because of mustard gas and other chemical agents. Some soldiers were drafted, against their will; others volunteered. They sacrificed personal freedom to serve in the military, and when told to put on their masks, they put them on. Wearing masks was necessary to save their own lives and those of others. It should not be so hard to grasp that if mask-wearing reduces risk of spreading the virus, even if masks are not 100% effective, this is not, as they say, rocket science.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS:
If students are distance learning, this means more parents will have to stay home to supervise their children, and more businesses will be without employees. Businesses don't like that.

If the federal government has to bail out citizens who are out of work and who are unable to pay rent or mortgages, then this means either borrowing or creating money to do so, as when the Federal Reserve (made up of private banks, in spite of the name) bailed out Wall Street. They used to call it "printing money," or "fiat" money. If the government and the Federal Reserve do this to help Wall Street, then the rich stay rich and get richer. If they would do this to help the average citizen, then the banks and corporations may fear that their own hoarded money may lose value, and they will have to work a bit harder to get the money out of the hands of the little people who have been bailed out.

Modern Monetary Theory claims that it's OK to create new money in this way, as long as people are still unemployed: As soon as employment is maxed out, then creating more money would result in inflation. So no, creating more money out of "thin air" would not automatically create runaway inflation, resulting in people taking wheelbarrow-loads of money to the grocery store to buy a loaf of bread (as the article notes). But some people would like us to believe that.

Bailing out the average citizen, and valuing the common good over personal freedom, would rub some powerful and rich people (who value profit and personal freedom) the wrong way, even if they do not represent the majority.

According to a recent article: A poll of 44,557 U.S. adults from June 29 to July 5 found that 63% of Americans say businesses are reopening too quickly. Another poll from July 5-7 found that 57% support closing state economies again due to corona-virus spike. Only 32% oppose closing down. 77% say that they believe it is likely Covid cases will increase.

Yet some rich and powerful people have been promoting the idea of opening up states for business in spite of the pandemic risks: A study of Twitter posts from May found that "Roughly half the Twitter accounts pushing to "reopen America' are bots." (Read more on that here.) Some would call this "astro-turfing," or creating an artificial illusion of grass-roots support. This means a wealthy and powerful minority are trying to make it appear as if they have more support than they really do to open up for business, and this paid-for propaganda is working, at least on some.

So in other words, perhaps it's not merely a conflict of goods, between those who value personal freedom more highly, and those willing to sacrifice personal freedom for the common good; perhaps it's a conflict between good and evil, where some who value personal freedom and profit are using deception to impose their will on others. (We know from many sources, including the example of Prince Hamlet's Uncle Claudius, the poisoning liar and usurper in Hamlet, that some people do this. It's not a conspiracy theory but a realist fact.) So in this sense, Hegel's idea of tragedy as conflicting goods is a very limited tool.

One of the many things that makes it even more difficult is that, instinctively, perhaps those who value empathy and the common good more than personal freedom might be personally inclined to displays of affection and to enjoying social time and intimacy, and yet the pandemic and measures to slow its spread asks people who may be inclined in these ways to isolate, to cut themselves off from a great deal of contact, in order to advance the common good. It may feel at times as if these are selfish choices rather than generous ones.

TO OPEN OR NOT TO OPEN; THAT IS THE QUESTION
States and school districts are facing many questions like Hamlet's "To be or not to be" question: Should certain public businesses be closed again? Should schools open? California has been enforcing a mask requirement, and the governor recently decided to close all bars, restaurants, and public theaters. Michigan has a $500 fine for not wearing masks, but sheriffs and police are saying they hope to focus first on educating the public, and not on fine enforcement.

COVID-19 Recognizes No Political Parties, But Some Partisan Ideas Spread It.
The New York Times published (and many have shared on social media) a graph which shows that states with Democratic Governors have done much better dealing with the pandemic, while states with Republican governors simply have terrible infection rates that are accelerating:


But one should note that states with Democratic governors are not islands, and it seems even those states are affected by the general upswing, perhaps due in part to internal factors (people in-state not wearing masks, spreading infection), as well as external factors (infected people from out-of-state bringing infection in).

Jennifer Serravallo, a teacher, respected literacy expert, and blogger, recently recommended that school districts should be spending less time coming up with multiple plans, to open schools completely, to open them partially, or to do distance learning. She says too much energy, time, and creativity are being wasted on plans to open, which would not be responsible during a surge in cases of COVID-19, and more of this energy and creativity should be used to make distance learning mroe effective, perhaps re-purposing school buses to deliver books and supplies to students. Serravallo notes the general and very concerning trend of new cases in the country:


Serravallo believes it is inevitable that cases will continue to rise, and that risks of reopening schools are unacceptable, at least in the US, so distance learning would be best.

The New York Times and Education Minnesota recently noted that "President Donald Trump suppressed a CDC report that concluded 'fully opening schools and universities remained the highest risk for the spread of coronavirus.'”

Again, it is not merely a conflict between the good of personal freedom and the common good. Those who value personal freedom over the common good tend to be habitual liars, so it's like Claudius and his personal freedom to poison and lie, vs. truth and the public good.

Why Even States Like Minnesota Should Not Go Back to In-Classroom learning this Fall:
I believe that in spite of some good statistics in my own state of Minnesota, even here, we should not be opening schools and expecting classroom learning to work and to safeguard the lives of students, staff, and their families. According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (as of July 14), confirmed cases in Minnesota are still high, and on the upswing, after a drop in mid-June:


Also according to the Star-Trib, the daily percentage of tests returned positive in Minnesota is on an upswing after the same lull in mid-June:

This doesn't look as dire as in some states like Florida, Texas, and Arizona, but trends in my state of Minnesota will probably continue to be influenced by the national trend.

So here are some of my main concerns:

1. NATIONAL STATISTICS: While some countries in Europe and others like New Zealand may be more ready to go back to the classrooms, the US is not. They have flattened the curve, we have not. We have more cases now than we did at peak in March and April. Even though deaths are falling overall and especially in some states, the increase in new cases, in part from summer activities, may more likely continue, and spread to Minnesota, and this spike and acceleration will inevitably result in more deaths. especially if strong measures are not taken.

2. CHILD HYGIENE: Children (especially young ones) are not careful enough of their personal hygiene habits, and this poses a risk to the children, to the families of students, and to teachers and staff. (Dr. James Alsop Tweeted about this in passing in a thread of Twitter posts about how complicated it is to try to replicate classroom teaching in distance learning.)

3. FAMILY EXPOSURE & AT-RISK GROUPS: Even if students in general are in a low-risk group, some children are higher risk, and they all go home to families, many of which have members who are higher risk. So we should not be thinking too narrowly in terms of children in general and the risk to them personally, but also in terms of the higher-risk students, and all the people they’re exposed to.

4. RELUCTANCE, CARELESSNESS, OPEN RESISTANCE: Many students and even some staff, in my experience, are reluctant, careless, or openly resistant to the idea of wearing masks. Many families allow and encourage their children to play and visit the homes of neighbors without social distancing and without masks, assuming that they will be safe and not expose one another to infection.

Some Republicans, including a former talk show host and a Republican party official in Missouri, have openly claimed that COVID-19 is merely a Democratic conspiracy to take the presidency from Trump. It's frightening, how many seem willing to believe them.

We are a nation divided, and these divisions will affect the health of students and the success or failure of school officials to ensure their health. If students, families, and some teachers and staff resist or refuse to wear masks, the health of each building is only as strong as the weakest links, and too many links are weak in this way.

5. LACK OF POLICY: Schools lack policies for enforcing safe practices. What if students don’t wear masks, don’t wash hands? What to do if one child in one classroom goes home sick? What do you do with the rest of that class? If refusal to wear a mask puts others at risk, it should really be grounds for immediate dismissal of an employee. Have unions discussed this? Are they willing to place the health of students and their members above the job security of a few teachers who may put health at risk?

5. AIR FLOW AND AIR CIRCULATION ISSUES: The World Health Organization (W.H.O) says the alarming rise of cases in the US, while other nations have falling numbers, is due in part not only to the refusal of some to wear masks, but also due to prolonged periods in enclosed places (malls, restaurants, churches) where the virus is airborne and air is recirculated.

Not only do such indoor settings lack air filters in their systems to filter out germs, but the circulation patterns of stale air *before* that air has a chance to be filtered exposes too many people, even if they wear masks. Schools in Minnesota don’t have air filtration systems equipped to filter out airborne virus particles, and even if they did, the patterns of circulated stale air expose too many children and staff to airborne germs.

The only way to fix this would be if every student had their own cubicle with its own air filtration, independent of all others, or if children wore independent air filtration systems and breathed exclusively into those. This is not feasible, making distance learning a more practical solution.

6. INADEQUACY OF SCREENING: Even if staff screen every student and staff member on their way into the buildings every day (which in itself poses a logistics nightmare, taking temps), there are still some people who will be asymptomatic and contagious, so putting students and staff in closed buildings still puts them at risk.

7. HEALTH & RISKS TO LIFE SHOULD OVERRIDE OTHER CONCERNS: The health of students and staff and of their families should be a greater concern than feelings about personal liberty, and opposition to masks (like opposition to wearing seat-belts, or to restrictions on drinking and driving. It's the law to comply with such things). Yes, there are many students who benefit greatly from from classroom learning, not only from collaboration and discussion, but from learning other social skills as well. But if people are getting sick and dying, that trumps other concerns.

These are some preliminary thoughts. Please add your own thoughts in comments, argue an opposing side, if you feel I’m missing something.

Teachers and the Hamlet Sacrifice:
All of this seems to put teachers in a very awkward position. Teachers are always asked to sacrifice; many use their own money to help purchase supplies for the classroom and for students in need. This has long been the case. Many teachers in the US have assumed that if someone brings a gun into their school and starts shooting, they may have to place themselves between the shooter and their students. This is part of the mindset of teachers in the US and many other places around the world.

So when society and Republican politicians in the US ask teachers for yet more sacrifice - to go back to classroom teaching in spite of health risks - it may feel to teachers as if this is just more of the same, and their job, their duty as teachers.

But other teachers are watching the national nightmare unfold, watching the statistics of new cases climb, and are weighing the risks and benefits of returning to the classroom. Doing so may make it easier for some parents in the short term, and allow businesses that employ them to enjoy some increased short-term profits.

Yet returning to the classroom would also, in the long term, probably endanger more lives, of students, co-workers, and their families. Preparations to return to the classroom may be wasted time, as Jennifer Sarravallo has noted, that should be spent reflecting and planning for how to make distance learning more effective. Some of these teachers are requesting that their schools assign them as distance learning teachers for those families that request it, which means that if not all request it, they may have to learn to teach new subjects and new grade levels. For others, it may mean taking a leave of absence, a loss of income, perhaps a permanent loss of their teaching position depending on the state and school district.

Whether teachers go back to classrooms or refuse all assignments but distance learning, they will be making sacrifices. Which sacrifices are best, and in the long-term interests of their students and the country? How are some parties in this conflict not merely making mistakes, but actively deceptive and promoting lies in order to achieve their objectives?

Time will tell how all of this will end. It appears that we are living in a tragedy. I am on the side of those teachers and families of students who feel distance learning this fall is the better and safer path; but I know many feel otherwise.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages in my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over any other, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to point out how the Bible may have influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for reading!
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.

Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):

https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html

I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.