I fully support Smith College President Kathleen McCartney’s decision (“Smith going remote,” Aug. 6), but I feel no joy in it.
Clearly, the decision makes very good sense based on public health criteria and will help to keep our local community safe. Yet, at the same time, I am working to name some of the negative repercussions and am asking what I can do in response.
Even with our best efforts, students from less privileged backgrounds may be more likely to struggle in achieving academic success while working remotely (and the same is true for K-12, where we have already seen the results of “separate and not-so-equal” remote learning within our communities).
The decisions by local colleges will also likely lead to additional furloughs and/or layoffs, which will further harm individuals and families within our community. And I anticipate that it will take a decade or more before we fully understand all of the dimensions of lockdowns and remote learning.
For those in our community who applauded this decision, I invite you to ask yourself what you can do to help mitigate the negatives. Perhaps donating to local food banks or supporting organizations like the Community Action Network, either with time or money. More broadly, we each might ask how privilege in our own lives (e.g. socio-economics, health status, gender, race) affects our views on the costs and benefits of policies around COVID-19, and then work toward positive change on an individual, community, national and global level.
Laura A. Katz
Northampton
The writer teaches biology at Smith College, and is co-founder of the AEMES programs for students of color and first-generation college students in STEM.