Opinion: I Chose To Be Vaccinated, But Doing So Shouldn’t Be Mandatory

Although I received the COVID-19 vaccine at the first opportunity, I am strongly opposed to requiring the vaccine, on both moral and religious grounds.

I will begin with the following premises:

1. Everyone who thinks that the vaccine should be required believes that the vaccine is effective (since no one would require a vaccine which the person does not believe is effective);
2. Everyone who thinks that the vaccine should be required is in one of two states:
   1. The person has himself (or herself) been vaccinated (since no one would support requiring a vaccine that he or she was unwilling to take); or
   2. The person is unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons, and in accordance with CDC recommendations will continue to wear masks and take other precautions to prevent being infected.
3. The long-term effects of the vaccines are not known (and cannot be known by fall since the vaccines have only been recently developed).

Therefore:

1. If a person (person A) believes that the vaccine is effective and has himself or herself been vaccinated, then that person is not at serious risk from being hurt due to others not being vaccinated. 
   1. On May 13, 2021, the CDC stated that people who are vaccinated do not even need to wear masks if they are around unvaccinated people.  So, even according to the CDC, being around unvaccinated people does not pose a significant risk to people who are.  
   2. Therefore, it is unreasonable for person A to use a “medical reason” to justify forcing someone else (person B) to undergo a medical treatment with which person B disagrees.
      1. While person A might argue that transmission of COVID-19 still is possible, based on the CDC’s statements, the risks of serious illness are small enough to make it untenable to deny students education or to fire faculty or staff who do not want to take the vaccine.
2. If person A believes that the vaccine is effective, but cannot himself or herself be vaccinated, the question arises as to whether person A should be able to force person B to undergo a medical treatment with which person B disagrees, on the chance that:
   1. Person A might come into contact with person B; and
   2. Person B might have COVID-19; and
   3. Person A (despite following CDC recommendations and continuing to take precautions against infection) nevertheless gets infected; and
   4. The virus causes serious harm to person A.
      1. The conditional probability is low enough that it is unreasonable for person A to justify forcing person B to undergo a medical treatment with which person B disagrees.
      2. A person who is medically compromised is at risk from many diseases besides COVID-19 and is at risk of contracting diseases in many places beyond the university (such as in grocery stores and in health care facilities).  Thus, a medically-compromised person should not be able to deny students education or to have faculty and staff fired based on the possibility that the other person might have some disease that puts the medically-compromised person at risk.

Having ruled out medical justifications for requiring the vaccine above, I will now turn to the other reasons that have been given for requiring the vaccine:

1. The state of California will continue masks and social distancing requirements if fewer than 100% of people are vaccinated and that will make it difficult for the university to offer face-to-face, in-person classes.  The response:
   1. Because the proposed policy exempts people with medical or religious reasons from getting vaccinated, Pepperdine will NOT reach 100% vaccination even if the policy is adopted; therefore, masks and social distancing still will be required anyway.  Thus, the policy will not achieve the stated goal of eliminating the need for masks and social distancing.
   2. We cannot know, today, what the state of California will or will not require 3 months from now and even if the state were to require masks and social distancing, that alone is insufficient to justify: 
      1. Forcing people to undergo medical treatment with which they disagree or;
      2. Denying students education or firing faculty or staff because they do not want to undergo medical treatment with which they disagree.
   3. The argument is, at its core, an “ends justify the means” argument, which is inherently inappropriate and particularly wrong for a university which claims to act in accordance with a Christian mission and to value the dignity of individuals.

2. Students may choose not to come (or return) to Pepperdine if the university does not require vaccination and that could cause economic problems for the university.  The response:
   1. Many factors enter into a student’s decision to attend a university.  While some students may choose not to come (or return) to the university if vaccinations are not required, students who do not want to be forced to undergo medical treatment with which they disagree may choose not to come (or return) to the university if vaccinations are required.  Thus, the economic impact is unclear.
   2. This argument also is, at its core, an “ends justify the means” argument, which is inherently inappropriate and particularly wrong for a university which claims to act in accordance with a Christian mission and to value the dignity of individuals.
   3. The argument places “profit” (or at least revenue) ahead of people, which is morally wrong.
      1. [As an accounting professor at a liberal arts college, I will note that my division colleagues and I often are falsely accused of caring only about money, rather than about people and justice, so I find it particularly ironic that many of my liberal arts colleagues are now arguing that the university should force people to undergo unwanted medical treatment in order to help the university make money.]

3. Requiring the COVID-19 vaccine is no different than requiring the measles vaccine.  The response:
   1. The measles vaccine has been in existence for decades and the evidence for its long-term safety is generally established. (However, while I do not question the long-term safety of the measles vaccine, I recognize that there are people who do.)

4. The COVID-19 vaccine is obviously safe and concerns about both short-term and long-term effects are invalid.  The response:
   1. The argument is without merit.  While it may be true that there will not be any short-term or long-term effects for most people, no one can be certain that there will not be short-term or long-term effects for some people.  Indeed, although incidents have been rare, there already have been serious effects (including death) for some people, so the vaccines do carry risk.
   2. It is impossible to know less than one year in, that there will not be long-term effects from the COVID-19 vaccine.
   3. The argument presumes that all potential COVID-19 vaccines are equally safe and that none of the vaccines developed will have long-term effects.
      1. While it may be true that the vaccines currently being used in the United States are safe, vaccines which may be used in other countries do not have to be approved by the United States and may not be safe themselves or may not be administered in ways that are safe.

5. The university believes that the vaccine is good for people, therefore the university should dictate that people get the vaccine for their own benefit.  The response:
   1. It is inappropriate for the university to impose its view of what is in people’s best interests and to override individuals’ own judgments as to the risks and benefits involved in getting the vaccine. 

6. “Everyone else” (or our competition) is requiring the vaccine.  The response:
   1. As my parents said when I was a child:  If everyone else is jumping off a bridge does that mean you should do so as well?  [The expected response was, of course, “no.”]
   2. The fact that “everyone else is doing it” (even if it were true, which it is not) does not justify a decision or make a decision correct.  Our culture and the world at large accept behavior that Scripture teaches is wrong.

7.  Requiring the vaccine is legal.  The response:
   1. The “legal” equals “moral” argument is indefensible.
      1. The massacre of Jews was “legal” in Nazi Germany (and protecting Jews was illegal) and slavery based on race was “legal” in the United States for a century (and helping slaves was illegal). The fact that something is “legal” does not make it moral, appropriate, or in accordance with God’s will.
         1. The “legal” equals “moral” argument is particularly inappropriate and abhorrent for a university that professes a Christian mission.
      2. I grew up Jewish and became a Christian while a student at Pepperdine.  My family roots are entirely in Germany, Russia, and “Eastern Europe” broadly.  The idea of forcing people to take a shot with unknown long-term effects brings up thoughts of the forced medical experimentation on Jews during the holocaust.  

As a final comment, I will note that the policy violates the requirement of Scripture to “love one’s neighbor as oneself” which often is converted to the “golden rule”:  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” More specifically, it violates the Rabbi Hillel version of the same concept:  “What is hateful to you, do not do to others.”  

It would be hateful to me to be forced to undergo medical treatment with which I disagree, so I cannot force other people to undergo medical treatment with which they disagree.  I received the vaccine with full awareness of the risks that I was undertaking, believing that the benefits outweighed the risks.  However, I cannot, in good conscience, stand by silently while the university considers: 1) forcing other people to undergo medical treatment where they perceive the risks to outweigh the benefits; or 2) penalizing other people for refusing to undergo medical treatment where they perceive the risks to outweigh the benefits.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Misch