A Student Response to “We’re Reopening Notre Dame”

May 26, 2020

My name is Angelica Ketcham, and I am a rising third-year architecture student at the University of Notre Dame. On May 18, I received a letter from the president of the university— The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.— outlining a plan to reopen for the fall semester of 2020.

An article, also by Fr. Jenkins, was published in the New York Times on May 26, issuing similar statements in a deeper context. His original letter was only sent to members of the Notre Dame community, giving the administration room to rescind the decision to reopen if necessary. The following article’s publication on a national scale is troubling, giving this decision a new permanence and complicating any potential retraction. Despite the elapsed time between letter and article, however, the decision itself remained frustratingly vague, with a lack of specific data, straightforward goals, and clear motives.

Before addressing Fr. Jenkins’ article in depth, I wish to make a few things plain. I do not seek to define a reopening of campus as impossible, or decry it as a poor decision. I also have no desire to belittle students whose home lives are difficult, unsafe, or non-conducive to academic growth, or who would otherwise find a virtual semester challenging. I do not claim to cover all perspectives on this issue, and would encourage a voicing of as many student views as possible.

Like everyone else, I am torn between two desires: I desperately want campus to reopen, but I want to arrive on that campus without risking any lives. I miss the buildings, classes, and people of Notre Dame, and I know how challenging I’ve found these past few months inside, keeping away from friends and activities. I also know, however, that I live in an Illinois county where one in every seventy-one people is infected, and that my returning in the fall could put others in danger. No amount of longing for an education fueled by personal interactions can erase that statistic.

A reference to Dr. Anthony Fauci leads Fr. Jenkins’ article, citing Fauci’s invaluable advice, but also claiming that science can only take us so far in issues of moral value. Fauci’s name is used several times in the article, but obscurely. His connections to Fr. Jenkins, first via their shared Catholic education and later via their familiarity with Aristotle, serve more as a method for lending Jenkins credibility than a discussion of any of Fauci’s recommendations in detail.

The article proceeds to emphasize the importance of moral insight regarding the “new normal” of the post-virus age. Fr. Jenkins concludes that it is worth the risks of reopening campus without an available vaccine to ensure that the next generation of leaders is educated appropriately— an education which depends on in-person interaction, as Fr. Jenkins highlights in his listing of the three principles that guided the decision to reopen. 

Perhaps the most striking statement in this article is, “we believe the good of educating students and continuing vital research is very much worth the remaining risk.” The examples chosen to credit this claim are soldiers risking their lives, medical professionals risking their health, and drivers risking an accident every time they use a car. In these instances, however, it is the soldiers and doctors and drivers themselves that weigh the risk and make the decision to become personally involved. In the case of a reopened campus, the administration makes this choice on behalf of its students. 

Accompanying this choice should be an acknowledgement of all of the motives for reopening campus. While the decision to reopen may be morally-driven, I assume that it is also influenced by economic factors, prominently the loss of room and board payments in the case of a virtual semester. It might remain unspoken in a less dire situation, but the structure within which universities across the nation function is inevitably built on the motive of money.

Students, families, faculty, and staff deserve more than broad promises of a reopening that bears both science and morals in mind. We deserve a thorough breakdown of known statistics, and informed predictions of those statistics that remain unknown. We also deserve a sense of urgency about communicating those numbers with the greater Notre Dame community as soon as possible: they can affect families’ financial planning, students’ decisions to enroll in the following semester, and staff members’ choices to keep their campus jobs.

How much money have we lost as a result of closing campus early? What is the breakdown of those expenses, and how does the loss compare to our remaining funds? How much new money does Notre Dame need to make in the fall semester in order to remain solvent, and under the new conditions, from what sources will that money come? Further, what is the dependency on student payments of room and board? What is the current financial status of the Student Emergency Relief Fund? With regards to Jenkins’ brief mention of the football season, if said season is unable to take place, what will be the financial impact on the university?

If a student tests positive for the virus and is required to quarantine, will they still pay full tuition while unable to attend classes? If a student becomes ill, will they still pay full tuition for the time that they spend recovering? Will they be able to feasibly catch up with the coursework? If a student cannot afford to pay for a coronavirus-interrupted semester, how will they be able to finish their education? More generally, will financial aid be negatively affected? Will scholarships be reduced, or eliminated?

What costs will be incurred by the purchase of virus testing supplies? What costs will be incurred by the need to keep everything several times cleaner than it has been in the past? What about the people who will need to be hired for testing and for cleaning? Can these expenses realistically be offset by the amount the university will earn from students paying a semester’s worth of room and board? Will students be expected to make a financial contribution towards their own testing?

There are also many logistical concerns to address. What happens when students travel on weekends? What happens when parents visit campus? How will the presence of South Bend residents on campus be monitored? How will the presence of Notre Dame students in South Bend be monitored? 

In the first weeks that we are all back on campus, I imagine that official, daytime situations like classes and dining might be easy to regulate. What about parties and other social gatherings? How will these things remain safe? Surely, they also form a part of the in-person interaction that is cited as so important to our holistic growth.

I do not assume that all of these questions currently have answers, but I seek reassurance that they will be kept in mind regardless, and answered before campus reopens.

I seek assurance that the university will value the input of the people it asks to clean the campus, especially when making a realistic estimate of how much time and how many resources are required for such a task.

I seek assurance that staff members will be compensated for extra work required by any new regulations, that they will be provided with the appropriate PPE, and that they will have access to adequate healthcare.

I seek assurance that immunocompromised students, or students with any legitimate reason to avoid risking a return to campus, will be provided with an online option, and that this option will come with a just price tag. The same goes for international students who are unable to reenter the United States. The same goes for students with unequal access to health care. The same goes for students who live in communities that have been disproportionately affected by the virus.

I seek assurance that if it becomes clear that returning to campus is too dangerous, the university will make the appropriate decision, regardless of the challenge of rescinding a public announcement to reopen.

I seek assurance that we the students, and our families, will have some say in what risks we are comfortable taking.

I seek assurance that the university has considered this final question: if Notre Dame reopens, and a student, staff member, or faculty member dies after contracting the virus, will their life still be considered a fair tradeoff for the education of the next generation of leaders?