22 thoughts on “Virginia AG Says State Universities Can’t Mandate Vaccine For Students

  1. The new AG has a different opinion than the old one. The old one also changed a lot of “legal opinions” concerning Jim Crow language from over time.

    Differing opinions mean nothing. If the new Guv and AG want to play into the “your body your choice” narrative, then they better not do anything to change the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. If they did, it would prove once again the rampant hypocrisy of the Republican Party.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “Adults, by default, have the right to choose whether or not to be vaccinated.”

    A condition of employment or condition of enrollment comes to mind. If you don’t want to get vaccinated against certain diseases, we don’t have to keep you on the job rolls or the student rolls.
    However, because it specific to state schools, I can see his point. I think it is foolish and wrongheaded, but I can see it.

    Like

    1. RE: “If you don’t want to get vaccinated against certain diseases, we don’t have to keep you on the job rolls or the student rolls.”

      That’s not exactly the point. Employers and schools have no authority to infringe your rights. To see why, imagine we were talking about skin color instead of vaccination. Would you say being white is a valid condition of employment or enrollment?

      The AG isn’t saying there can’t be a vaccine mandate, only that there has to be a legal basis for it.

      Like

      1. “Employers and schools have no authority to infringe your rights.”
        Baloney. They do it every day.

        “To see why, imagine we were talking about skin color instead of vaccination. Would you say being white is a valid condition of employment or enrollment?”

        The distinction between the choices people make and how they were born is not hard to understand. Try a little harder with your analogies. Employers can set whatever conditions of employment they choose so long as they do not violate laws against discrimination. If you do not accept and follow those conditions, they do not have to keep you on.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Employers can set whatever conditions of employment they choose so long as they do not violate laws against discrimination.”

          No, they can’t. If they could, they could abridge the Bill of Rights or require employees to break the law.

          Like

          1. RE: “The Bill of Rights is about what GOVERNMENT cannot do.”

            It is also about WHY government can’t do certain things; in this case because the rights of the people are unalienable.

            But if that logic is too subtle, tell us how an employment contract can make illegal activity a condition of employment.

            Like

          2. Illegal activity cannot be LEGALLY made a condition of employment. That is a silly straw man you want to beat up. Knock yourself out.

            Below is an example of a LEGAL condition of employment that violates your putative First Amendment right of free speech:

            From the boss: “Our business depends on the goodwill of decent people. Therefore, any employee wearing a MAGA hat to work will be subject to immediate dismissal.”

            If presented with that rule by your employer, you would have two and only two options. Leave your MAGA hat at home. Or, be dismissed – legally.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Banning MAGA hats in the workplace does not impact the right of free speech because no one has a right to do wrong — i.e., and employee has no right to harm his employer.

            Banning MAGA hats outside the workplace probably would violate the 1st Amendment, since behavior outside the workplace is unlikely to harm the employer.

            Do you really mean to suggest that the legal relationship between and employer and an employee is comparable to that between a master and a slave?

            Like

      2. Employers and schools have the right to protect their populations in the best way they see fit. Vaccines and other conditions of employment and enrollment have been in place for decades and can be altered as needs change.

        …”only that there has to be a legal basis for it.”That goes against small government intervention that you advocate for regularly. The only difference in this case is that state-funded schools have to follow the law. And while I disagree with the premise of Miyares’s opinion, it is not incorrect.

        Like

        1. The premise of Miyares’s opinion is that no law currently exists authorizing the colleges to create Covid vaccine mandates.

          I’m pointing out that in the absence of a law or regulation granting the necessary authority, the rights of the individual are paramount. I can’t imagine how anyone would disagree.

          Like

          1. “The premise of Miyares’s opinion is that no law currently exists authorizing the colleges to create Covid vaccine mandates.”

            Is there a law forbidding it? I don’t think so.

            “The rights of the individual are paramount.”

            Sometimes, often in fact, the rights of individuals are in conflict. Your right to swing your arms around stops at my nose is one way that it is put. My right to attend work or school in a safe environment trumps your right to bring contagion to that environment. The Right to Life (something you say you are for) trumps the silly and dangerous “right” of remaining unvaccinated.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Is there a law forbidding it? I don’t think so.”

            Irrelevant. The colleges cannot make law.

            Your contention that the rights of individuals are often in conflict is also irrelevant in this context, because no one is claiming a right to cause harm. The AG has merely put the public colleges on notice that the resolution of conflicting rights needs to be settled by the General Assembly.

            Like

          3. “Irrelevant. The colleges cannot make law.”

            THAT is irrelevant because a mask or vaccine mandate is NOT a law. It is a matter of administration under long standing policies legally imposed on the university community. From the UVA Policy Directory:

            “Policy Statement:
            All University activities shall be conducted using reasonable precautions to protect employees, students, the public and the environment so as to minimize dangers to life, safety and property.”

            and

            “Failure to comply with the requirements of this policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination or expulsion in accordance with relevant University policies.”

            https://uvapolicy.virginia.edu/policy/SEC-019

            Mask and vaccine mandates fit clearly in that policy and absent any law to the contrary, the AG has no authority to negate the authority of the University to take such reasonable precautions.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “Mask and vaccine mandates fit clearly in that policy…”

            Maybe you think so, but you are not the AG. Perhaps he thinks that mask and vaccine mandates don’t qualify as “reasonable precautions,” or that any dispute over reasonable precautions cannot in practice be resolved by allowing the colleges to define them.

            In any case, Virginia’s public colleges are subservient to the General Assembly and the AG has a valid duty to preserve that subservient relationship in controversial matters.

            Like

          5. I am sure that the AG had his reasons – none of them legal reasons. It is a purely political stunt. It could easily cost lives if it causes anybody to be less careful about the virus than they should be. But, as you might say – so what? After all, virtually all the people dying from the virus these days are those who stupidly refuse free, safe, and effective vaccines. And most of those kinds of people applaud this stunt. Like you do. If karma catches up with them. . . I really don’t care, do U?

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “Are you accusing the AG of breaking the law?”

            Obviously not. He can issue any opinions he wants.

            But if he thinks they have the force of law he is delusional. If he wants to outlaw reasonable health and safety protocols at our universities, he needs to get the Legislature to do so.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. RE: “If he wants to outlaw reasonable health and safety protocols at our universities, he needs to get the Legislature to do so.”

            The AG doesn’t have to outlaw an action the colleges are not authorized to commit.

            Like

          8. “The AG doesn’t have to outlaw an action the colleges are not authorized to commit.”

            They are authorized – and required – to run a safe and secure environment. And, BTW, failing to do so opens the University, the state and ultimately the taxpayers to torts.

            Once again, if following CDC guidelines for the protection of students, faculty and staff in the midst of a raging pandemic is to be prohibited, that is a matter for the legislature to act on. Or do you think the Governor is some sort of king who can risk the lives of his subjects on a whim?

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s