A vaccination mandate for San Mateo Union High School District students participating in extracurricular activities has been postponed, with the policy headed for a second round of discussion and a tentative date for implementation pushed into mid-October.
The move comes after a lengthy San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees meeting Thursday evening, which saw disagreement between trustees and heated public comment. Trustees previously proposed for students to have at least their first shot by Sept. 20 or face removal from extracurricular activities, including sports, clubs and plays.
Most trustees still support such a measure, but would like more time for students and families to prepare for the rule, which is now likely to begin Oct. 16.
“It’s an important issue,” board President Robert Griffin said. “It’s either going to bring us together or drive us further apart, and we’re trying deliberate it and do the best we can.”
The district, which includes six high schools from San Bruno to San Mateo and approximately 9,000 students, has a current student vaccination rate of 82%. Twenty-eight students and two staff members have tested positive for COVID-19 since the beginning of the school year; 17 of those cases were among the unvaccinated, according to a presentation during the meeting.
Of the five-member board, Vice President Peter Hanley, Trustee Ligia Andrade Zúñiga and Trustee Greg Land spoke in support of the measure. Trustee Linda Lees Dwyer indicated she was not in support and President Robert Griffin did not clearly indicate one way or the other.
Those who spoke in favor cited primarily the goal of getting more students vaccinated, hoping the mandate would provide an adequate incentive.
“This is a step in the right direction that is going to encourage more people to behave responsibly,” said Hanley, who suggested the rule last month. “Right now we’re suffering, everyone’s suffering under this, and I think vaccinations are the way to get out.”
Zúñiga echoed the sentiment, adding that the board has a responsibility to protect students from the virus.
Dwyer, however, questioned whether the rule would have the desired effects.
“I don’t think we’re going to achieve anything with it besides a lot of discord, between students, between families,” Dwyer said. “This is not the time for discord, this is a time everyone needs to push together and pull together.”
Aragon High School Athletic Director Steven Sell said he came to the meeting in support of the measure but, after listening to concern, urged trustees to reconsider moving forward with it.
Also addressed in discussion was the potential disproportionate effect the policy would have on students of color.
According to the district’s numbers, 87% of Asian students, 85% of Filipino students, 84% of mixed-race students, 82% of white students, 61% of Latino students, 58% of Pacific Islander students and 55% of Black students are vaccinated.
“Looking at our students, our student athletes, and the ones who would not be vaccinated, it’s people of color,” Land said. “And I’m concerned that we need to get them vaccinated.”
Griffin noted that increasing vaccination rates among students of color may not be that straightforward.
“If you look at — BIPOC is the term — people that have really low vaccination percentages, these are people I talk to,” Griffin said. “There is a deep-seated distrust of the system, period. They’re going to say ‘I don’t trust the system, the people lie to us, they’ve been lying to us for a long time.’ I’m not sure if you’re going to successfully penetrate that group of people.”
Public comment during the meeting was largely in opposition of the mandate, with several parents speaking.
“When I first heard about this proposal I was pleased, that feeling lasted about 10 seconds,” said Victoria Daniel, a teacher of 26 years at Aragon High School and parent of a student there. “What [the mandate] will do is further punish or isolate a group of students whose choice to vaccinate has largely been made for them.”
Daniel called the proposal hypocritical for allowing unvaccinated students to sit indoors for long periods of time without adequate social distancing but not allowing them to participate in extracurricular outdoor activity.
“As a district we say we care about the whole child, that we understand the mental health toll that the distance learning took last year,” Daniel said. “Now you propose to take away these activities that promote that physical and mental health, that is so hypocritical that it hurts.”
Daniel called for the district to mandate vaccination across the board “if you mean business.”
Other parents raised concern over perceived dangers of the vaccine, or the lawfulness of the mandate, issues Hanley was quick to address.
“Vaccinations have been mandated for public education for 70 years, maybe more. This is not a new concept,” Hanley said. “This kind of misinformation and outright lies about the vaccine and the effects of the vaccine are crippling our society, crippling our economy, it’s preventing us from moving on.”
The board’s next meeting will take place in two weeks, at which time it is expected to make a final decision on the mandate.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.