|
|
Post by efg72 on Aug 30, 2020 17:01:47 GMT -5
any of these athletes?
Holy Cross off-campus party linked to 21 COVID-19 cases, according to Worcester officials
A large off-campus party earlier this month at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester has spawned a cluster of COVID-19 cases, according to city officials.
As of Saturday, 21 cases of COVID-19 had been linked to the party, according to city spokesman Walter Bird Jr.
Although Holy Cross is holding all classes online this fall — and the semester has not even begun — college officials said in a letter to the student body that campus police responded to a “large party” students threw at a rented off-campus apartment on College Street the night of Aug. 15.
Officials blasted the party in the letter, released days after the gathering when only one confirmed COVID-19 case among partygoers had been confirmed.
“Not only did the number of people in attendance exceed the state limit on the number of people at a gathering, but attendees were not wearing masks or adhering to physical distancing guidelines,” Michele C. Murray, dean of students, said in the letter.
The letter vowed that the students responsible for the party would be held accountable.
“Hosting and attending a gathering of this size, in close quarters, with no masks, is highly irresponsible and violates our most important Holy Cross values of commitment and service to others,” she said.
According to Bird, 20 other Holy Cross students linked to the party or in direct contact with partygoers have since contracted the virus. As of Friday, there were 5,803 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Worcester, according to the city’s website. At least two other Worcester colleges have reported coronavirus cases in the past 30 days: four each at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Clark University.
“In the wake of COVID-positive student cases at Holy Cross, the City has been working collaboratively with the College to identify those who have tested positive as well as those who need to be quarantined,” city manager Edward M. Augustus Jr. said in an e-mailed statement to the Globe Sunday. “The City intends to meet with College officials as soon as possible to discuss strategies to prevent the spread of the coronavirus on and off-campus.”
A college spokesman did not provide details about the party, but said students “have been reminded of their responsibilities to each other and to the greater community.”
“Any student who attended the party has been instructed to get tested and to quarantine themselves for 14 days. Any student who hosts a party will be held accountable under our student conduct policy,” the spokesman, John Hill, said in an e-mail.
Hill did not provide information on how many students were told to isolate as a result of the party.
Holy Cross is a Jesuit liberal arts college founded in 1843 with just over 3,000 students , according to the school’s website.
College officials spoke more strongly in their letter days after the event, warning students that such behavior jeopardized their presence on campus.
“Put simply: We will not be able to welcome back the entire campus community, or even a larger cohort than we have this fall, if students cannot demonstrate the self-discipline, mutual respect, and care for others by following requirements to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
The letter, also signed by the college’s director of health services and associate dean of students, said Holy Cross was “terribly disappointed by the events of the past weekend. The students who took part in this event should be equally disappointed,” officials “We can do better. We must do better,” they said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 30, 2020 17:49:28 GMT -5
Neither will happen. The only rule broken was a MA guideline prohibiting indoor gatherings of 25 or more.
No violation of a HC policy that I am aware of.
In this instance, the party was held before the date when HC asked students to begin a 14 day quarantine at home before returning to school. The August 14 party date was on the cusp of the 14 day quarantine period.
_______________
The big question mark for HC before it went primarily went remote was the large number of students living off-campus. In July, HC had asked students to indicate whether where they would be living for fall semester. Partial returns were 70 percent on-campus, four percent commute from home, about ten percent entirely remote, and the remainder, about 15 percent were living off-campus in Worcester. That is approximately 450-475 students, off-campus. I do not know whether the percentage of students living on-campus included those living at HC-leased apartments at The Edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Aug 30, 2020 18:12:17 GMT -5
Nothing should happen to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 30, 2020 18:12:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Aug 30, 2020 19:12:31 GMT -5
Nothing should happen to them. We don’t disagree normally, but honestly I think the punishment should be severe. In my opinion these students understand the impact of their behavior and how it might impact the lives of others in the Holy Cross and Worcester communities. Imho their behavior is both selfish and unacceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 30, 2020 20:24:38 GMT -5
My guess is that anyone who returns to campus will have to sign some sort of code of conduct. Until that happens, I'm not sure what HC can do.
You get a signed code of conduct that says the kid can get tossed for violating the code, then you can toss them For the sake of argument assuming there was no under age drinking (and that might be a stretch), we are talking about suspending or expelling kids who are at "home" on summer break for breaking guidelines. That seems like pretty shaky ground, even if the party goers exhibited poor judgement
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray on Aug 30, 2020 21:16:04 GMT -5
Didn't the first reports on this, or the initial email from Fr. B, make reference to a code of conduct that had been violated? I thought one was already in place... no reason in this day and age to wait until students are back on campus to sign something. Given how late they made the move to remote learning, I would absolutely think that a contract/code was drawn up and distributed during the summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Aug 30, 2020 21:33:42 GMT -5
I am shocked, shocked to hear college-aged kids are having parties without social distancing and without wearing masks. Next I’ll be hearing there is beer at these parties.
Beyond that, we shut down our campus weeks ago, go 100% online, and still manage to garner bad press relative to HC kids and Covid. Can’t catch a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 30, 2020 21:36:13 GMT -5
Didn't the first reports on this, or the initial email from Fr. B, make reference to a code of conduct that had been violated? I thought one was already in place... no reason in this day and age to wait until students are back on campus to sign something. Given how late they made the move to remote learning, I would absolutely think that a contract/code was drawn up and distributed during the summer. Do we think it included conduct over the summer before the kids return to school? |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 31, 2020 7:14:13 GMT -5
Didn't the first reports on this, or the initial email from Fr. B, make reference to a code of conduct that had been violated? I thought one was already in place... no reason in this day and age to wait until students are back on campus to sign something. Given how late they made the move to remote learning, I would absolutely think that a contract/code was drawn up and distributed during the summer. There is a 'code of conduct', but IIRC, the 'code of conduct' is agreed to when a student comes on-campus, in an 'official' manner; i.e., move-in day for those who will live on-campus, or initial corona test day for those living off-campus, but who will be coming on-campus for in-person classes, or to use campus facilities and resources. The code of conduct does not apply to those who are enrolling remotely and will not be coming on campus for any reason. As to the question of how many may have been athletes, the answer probably can be found whether athletes who were living off-campus would sign leases that began the 1st of August, to allow participation in pre-season practice. I wouldn't think students without a need to be back on-campus before the semester starts, convocation is today, are signing leases for occupancy weeks in advance. The college's calendar traditionally has covered a period of nine months, with classes beginning at the end of August and concluding mid-May, with commencement 8-10 days after classes end. The college wrote to parents and students on August 19th, saying, in effect, the college will be on-campus for the spring semester, come hell or high water. |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 31, 2020 7:19:00 GMT -5
If I had to guess, I would say "yes" as soon as they signed it. I'd be shocked if the students didn't sign the agreement well before they hit the campus or school starting.
Considering this is a "men and women for others" mantra at the school, you really can't be "for others" just part of your life. It's at least assumed to be 365/24/7. Not just on-campus/when school in session. If you are going to protect others in the community, it's not a part time job. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Aug 31, 2020 7:41:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 31, 2020 8:00:45 GMT -5
Didn't the first reports on this, or the initial email from Fr. B, make reference to a code of conduct that had been violated? I thought one was already in place... no reason in this day and age to wait until students are back on campus to sign something. Given how late they made the move to remote learning, I would absolutely think that a contract/code was drawn up and distributed during the summer. As to the question of how many may have been athletes, the answer probably can be found whether athletes who were living off-campus would sign leases that began the 1st of August, to allow participation in pre-season practice. I wouldn't think students without a need to be back on-campus before the semester starts, convocation is today, are signing leases for occupancy weeks in advance. The college's calendar traditionally has covered a period of nine months, with classes beginning at the end of August and concluding mid-May, with commencement 8-10 days after classes end. My guess is that all scholarship athletes live in school owned housing rather than pay for 3rd party owned off campus housing. I assume that non-scholarship athletes are as likely to get an off campus apartment as the rest of the student body |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 31, 2020 8:07:25 GMT -5
worth noting that the parties that drew suspensions were after the kids were back at school |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 31, 2020 8:08:57 GMT -5
Below are the sanctions (as of a month ago) for violations of the 'community commitment', i.e., a code of conduct.
It is largely silent on the consequences of conduct in off--campus housing not owned by the college, that violates standards or protocols; e.g., there is a prohibition against guests in HC residence halls, but no such similar prohibition for those living off-campus in non college-leased housing.,
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 31, 2020 8:21:42 GMT -5
As to the question of how many may have been athletes, the answer probably can be found whether athletes who were living off-campus would sign leases that began the 1st of August, to allow participation in pre-season practice. I wouldn't think students without a need to be back on-campus before the semester starts, convocation is today, are signing leases for occupancy weeks in advance. The college's calendar traditionally has covered a period of nine months, with classes beginning at the end of August and concluding mid-May, with commencement 8-10 days after classes end. My guess is that all scholarship athletes live in school owned housing rather than pay for 3rd party owned off campus housing. I assume that non-scholarship athletes are as likely to get an off campus apartment as the rest of the student body I think the majority of athletes receiving merit are on partial scollies (exceptions are M/W hoops, M/W ice hockey). I would think the $ amount of aid is calculated against the total cost of attendance, and not further broken out by x$ for tuition, $y for room and board (and the recipient must reside on-campus). |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 31, 2020 8:36:37 GMT -5
Well based on this, it sounds like although the party goers violated the spirit of the code, they may not have violated the letter of the code. Suspension or expulsion could be a hard sell.
Classes start tomorrow. I assume that students returning to campus in any capacity have done so. I also assume any student will be be setting foot on campus at all will have officially agreed to the policy. Going forward, I anticipate consequences. However, I do not envision suspension or expulsion for the party goers from two weeks ago
|
|
|
|
Post by crusader99 on Aug 31, 2020 12:44:19 GMT -5
this will be an interesting decision by the College. i read the policy posted above to limit the authority of the College over students/visitors to on-campus activity. The policy statement reads "Any student returning to campus in any capacity" . . . my legally trained mind would read that language to mean exactly what it say, conduct on-campus is regulated by the College. this is a slippery slope. if the College exercises authority on student behavior off-campus, where is the limit. does off-campus mean just those streets on the Hill, or those within the City limit that would encompass the Edge apartment complex. Does the exercise of authority also bring the responsibility to protect those from foreseeable harm or conditions. enacting conditions to entry onto campus and use campus facilities, including open space, and the ability to discipline for violating rules, after appropriate due process, is, IMO the best course of action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 1, 2020 17:34:54 GMT -5
With respect to off-campus behavior, only a Talmudic scholar might make sense of different, but related offenses.
Example: the college has prohibited students who 'garage' their cars on campus to drive those cars across any state line. (Putting aside the enforceability of such a prohibition, this prohibition does not apply to students who do not bring their cars on campus.) Student A takes his/her car from its on-campus 'garage' to Providence, attends off-campus party at the Rhode island School of Design, becomes infected at the party, returns to HC and subsequently tests positive. Student B takes his/her car from its on-campus 'garage' to Boston, attends off-campus party at Boston University, becomes infected, and subsequently tests positive. No sanction against B; sanction (loss of parking permit) against A for crossing the state line into RI?
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 1, 2020 19:03:47 GMT -5
The students attending the unsafe party have all been banned from campus. Unfortunately, most other students have also as the College decided to go remote for the semester. Apparently the reduced capacity of the HC testing vendor was the major reason but this party where 21 attendees tested positive afterwards certainly didn't help.
One communication from HC indicated that students living nearby could be granted access to some college facilities if they passed screening iirc. I would have no problem with Father B. putting his foot down and informing the students who attended the unsafe party to not even think about accessing college facilities this semester because passing the screening requires not attending any gatherings that violate State or local guidelines.
|
|
