NOTE: Professor Todd Zywicki is suing George Mason University to avoid vaccination or masks.
The following is satire, in case anyone at Stanford might be reading this.
“In a few weeks I will begin my 24th year as a law professor at LawProfBlawg University. Last year, I volunteered to attend faculty meetings live. Service is part of my job, and I knew I could do it safely. I owe my colleagues my best by attending and being vocal at meetings. And I knew I could do it safely. During the Spring of 2010, I contracted tenure. I later confirmed this through a positive provost test.
But now, my employer, a state institution, is requiring me to attend faculty meetings. In my case, faculty meetings are unnecessary and potentially risky. My only other options are to attend remotely with my screen off while napping or to seek multiple monthly excuses from attending the faculty meeting, a time consuming and costly endeavor.
It is impossible for me to perform my duties to the best of my ability under such conditions. The administration has threatened that if I don’t show up to meetings, I could face disciplinary action and potentially termination. This week, I’m looking for a lawyer, potentially the New Civil Liberties Alliance, to file suit on my behalf, challenging the University’s mandatory faculty meeting requirement. And to overturn any provost election that might be against my favor.
Were I not naturally immune from faculty meetings, I would still be excited about going to faculty meetings. But once you have tenure, you have natural immunity, and continued attendance provides none of the benefits of meetings with all of the costs. I’m sure the university, whose administration I mock, can finely distinguish between my legitimate claim to avoid this activity and those who are merely abusing the system.
Moreover, attending faculty meetings could physically harm me. Research suggests that the emotional tolls of faculty meetings are very risky. If you do not attend, there is the fear of missing out. If you do attend, there is the emotional toll of waiting for late arrivals, making small talk before the meetings start, and of course the unnecessary pain and suffering as people communicate things that could have been shared in an e-mail. For me, someone who has meeting immunity, it is unlikely I will retain any of that information anyway.
Also, mental anguish affects my physical health. As I sit painfully tweeting and messaging other colleagues, I am not physically moving. This, over time, increases one’s blood pressure and stress level, often, particularly during hiring meetings, leading to migraines.”
End Satire.
Okay, while that was fun, there’s some very serious issues with the argument that Zywicki makes in his complaint against his employer, GMU. In that complaint, Zywicki argues that he should be able to avoid the vaccine mandate of his university because he already has developed antibodies and being forced to take the vaccine risks his health. He also suggests that the alternatives the university requires, such as mask mandates, would hamper his ability to teach his students.
At the same time, Zywicki argues that he trusts his doctor more than the managers of the university for his health decisions. Yet somehow he would have to trust the managers in their determinations as to when someone should get a waiver based upon their level of immunity (which may change over time).
Zywicki also claims that he’s got some solid lasting immunity and thus the state university lacks any compelling state interest in his vaccination. Here, I think there’s tons of stretch. First, it’s not necessarily the case that having COVID-19 means you can’t get it again. And there’s recent data that suggests, without vaccination, those who have had COVID-19 are more than twice as likely to get it again as those who have had it and have been vaccinated.
Of course, as Joe Patrice points out, there are options for Zywicki. Namely, he can wear a mask. But Zywicki doesn’t want to, and, without regard to what signal he’s sending students across the country (or perhaps with that precise regard), Zywicki’s lawsuit threatens GMU’s ability to prove the safest environment possible for those who legitimately CANNOT get vaccinated.
Or he could get vaccinated. But Zywicki suggests, citing this study, that the risks are too great for him. He needs to read the study more carefully: Because it doesn’t quite say exactly what Zywicki suggests, unless I’m reading it wrong. Some vaccines are better than others, and potentially safer for Zywicki to take.
Meanwhile, other schools with less sound health policies, either due to university ineptitude or cowardice (in the face of gubernatorial ineptitude), will be engaging in greater risks to their students.
And some students, taking Zywicki’s lead, will be seeking to destroy vaccine protections at their universities, while unironically supplying proof of meningitis vaccine to enter their universities as freshman.
Hell of a world, isn’t it?
LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg). Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group 
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of 