[TrumpCard]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

And I understand your position even if I disagree with the arguments you made above, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.  My main point, which I didn't emphasize enough, is that recruiting at Stanford is hard enough. We have only a tiny pool of applicants who can qualify academically and compete at the highest level. I believe that our vaccine policy has now made that pool even smaller. The vaccine requirement has added another barrier to the already herculean task of convincing the few interested and qualified high schools student-athletes to come play for Stanford. We are in a somewhat similar situation to the 2001-2005 restrictions which set us back several years.

Right, I understood your point.  My response is "oh well," and I presume Stanford's response would be the same.  Your premise may be correct that Stanford is losing recruits from the vaccine policy.  Stanford's public statements, however, lead me to believe that Stanford and I are on the same page regarding the vaccines, i.e. that they are safe and effective and that mandating them is an absolute necessity (at least for now) to protect the health and safety of the 30,000+ people who live and work on campus, as well as their families.  So if that hurts Stanford football, tough.  I don't think you are saying that you would put 30,000+ people in harm's way for the sake of Stanford football.  I think you are saying that the vaccine mandates are not needed and won't protect anyone.  It's not material whether you are right or wrong.  The reality is that Stanford thinks you are wrong, and there is no chance on Earth that Stanford would jeapordize the health and safety of everyone on campus just for football.  It's not really a question of priorities, I don't think.  It's more a question of whether or not Stanford believes your premise that the vaccine is all downside, no upside, and it seems quite clear to me that Stanford vociforously disagrees.  (If I'm wrong and you value college football above the health and safety of people at Stanford and their families, then that's a whole different ballgame, but I don't think that's the disconnect here.)

[TrumpCard]

Alvin, I understand your position on the vaccine.  My position is different, but that's irrelevant to you.  The material fact for you is that Stanford has a different position on the vaccine, and it is highly unlikely to change for the upcoming academic year.  Things could be different for 2023-2024 because the world changes quickly.  But I can say with some confidence is that Stanford won't be changing its COVID vaccine policy because of football recruiting.  Stanford hasn't worked that way in the 25+ years I have been paying attention to stuff like this, and that is highly unlikely to change.  Again, it's not really material to you, but I personally am satisfied with Stanford's vaccine policy, and I give essentially zero weight to football recruiting in reaching that conclusion.  I support Stanford's vaccine policy because the vaccine is safe and effective, and the safety of more than 30,000 faculty members, staff, and students dwarfs any concern I might have about football recruiting.  I'd be thrilled if Stanford's vaccine policy actually resulted in additional people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't so they can have the privilege to attend Stanford.  I send my best wishes to those who refuse the vaccine, but I'm not too sad if the vaccine refusers stay in other regions of the country where they are less likely to spread the disease to me or my family.

And I understand your position even if I disagree with the arguments you made above, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.  My main point, which I didn't emphasize enough, is that recruiting at Stanford is hard enough. We have only a tiny pool of applicants who can qualify academically and compete at the highest level. I believe that our vaccine policy has now made that pool even smaller. The vaccine requirement has added another barrier to the already herculean task of convincing the few interested and qualified high schools student-athletes to come play for Stanford. We are in a somewhat similar situation to the 2001-2005 restrictions which set us back several years.

Right, I understood your point.  My response is "oh well," and I presume Stanford's response would be the same.  Your premise may be correct that Stanford is losing recruits from the vaccine policy.  Stanford's public statements, however, lead me to believe that Stanford and I are on the same page regarding the vaccines, i.e. that they are safe and effective and that mandating them is an absolute necessity (at least for now) to protect the health and safety of the 30,000+ people who live and work on campus, as well as their families.  So if that hurts Stanford football, tough.  I don't think you are saying that you would put 30,000+ people in harm's way for the sake of Stanford football.  I think you are saying that the vaccine mandates are not needed and won't protect anyone.  It's not material whether you are right or wrong.  The reality is that Stanford thinks you are wrong, and there is no chance on Earth that Stanford would jeapordize the health and safety of everyone on campus just for football.  It's not really a question of priorities, I don't think.  It's more a question of whether or not Stanford believes your premise that the vaccine is all downside, no upside, and it seems quite clear to me that Stanford vociforously disagrees.  (If I'm wrong and you value college football above the health and safety of people at Stanford and their families, then that's a whole different ballgame, but I don't think that's the disconnect here.)