Quarantining the Ivory Tower

Even though it has primarily afflicted people residing halfway around the globe, the impact of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) virus hit home for many Harvard students this week. On April 4, the University issued a “temporary moratorium” on travel to mainland China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore and Toronto—locations that have been most severely affected by the recent SARS outbreaks. As a recent follow-up to the moratorium, University officials have announced that students taking courses in affected areas will not receive Harvard credit, and may not be able to use University grant money to fund travel and research expenses in East Asia or Toronto in the coming months. While the University should play a role in discouraging students from potentially dangerous travel plans, by eliminating course credit from certain locales, Harvard officials have overstepped their bounds.

SARS very clearly poses a high level of danger to anyone traveling in nations that have been besieged by the disease. The mortality rate for the illness, reported to be between five and six percent, is significantly higher than that of more prevalent diseases, and thus presents a clear and present danger to those who may be exposed to it. Furthermore, SARS’s incubation period of 10 to 14 days would dictate the prudence of a quarantine protocol to ensure that those returning from SARS-infected areas do not pose a danger to their fellow students. Common sense dictates that students should put off optional plans of study that would bring them to SARS-affected nations. But if a student deems it necessary to travel to East Asia or Toronto for academic reasons—and is willing to accept the risks—it is not the University’s job to forbid their travel.

While it would be wrong for an academic department to require students to travel in areas where their health may be at risk, it is not appropriate for Harvard to usurp the role of the government and implement a de facto ban on travel to affected countries. The University should work with the relevant public health officials to insure the safety of students who are traveling to infected areas as well as the safety of the Harvard community.

Harvard should take special care to support students whose theses and other academic interests are contingent on travel to infected areas. Dozens of students have been left high and dry by the new policy and it is the University’s responsibility to make provisions to help them pursue their academic interests without putting their health at risk. And while the University should educate students about the risks they take, it should not assume the role of public health and disease control officials.