Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

On June 12, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul expressed support for a mask ban on subways and at protests while other politicians in New York City, Los Angeles and North Carolina are considering or have already passed laws that ban masks in public spaces. Disability, civil liberties and other activists have raised alarm regarding how mask bans, even with formal exemptions for health and religious reasons, offer no guarantee of fair enforcement and can stigmatize masking in general during an ongoing pandemic. This said, I argue that we should oppose mask bans due to two vital functions.

Firstly, banning masks will enable easier surveillance of oppressed groups. Surveillance technology to catch protesters has increased around the world in light of the visible outpouring of support for the pro-Palestine movement. Additionally, activists have used masks to protect themselves from repression, surveillance and doxing by right-wing provocateurs.

To quell campus movements, police and administrators have threatened protesters in Florida, Ohio and Texas with arrest for wearing masks. Students at several colleges face code of conduct charges for pro-Palestine protests, and there has been explicit targeting on prospects for future employment and student loan forgiveness. Indeed, these acts are consistent with the United States’ long record of state surveillance against Black, Indigenous, civil rights and anti-imperialist groups.

Secondly, mask bans downplay COVID-19 and thus avoid its social and political lessons. COVID-19 has been a world health crisis, taking the lives of at least seven million people globally and 1.2 million people in the U.S. COVID infections have risen in 38 states this summer, and some hospitals and venues have even reinstated mask mandates. Long COVID remains a widespread illness, affecting 6.8% of U.S. adults with fatigue, blood clots, lung, heart and neurological issues.

The first lesson of COVID some politicians are eager to bury is that combatting a contagious, airborne respiratory virus is inherently collective and interdependent. It requires a state-directed public health response. Discourses of individual responsibility, “choice” or risk assessment are ill-suited: Is the choice to not mask based on accurate information? Does this choice impinge on other people’s freedom to inhabit public space? Would a mandate affirm a social right to protect oneself and others from illness and make spaces more accessible?

Flynn Ledoux | Illustration Editor

While many people in the U.S. may have had COVID and been asymptomatic or recovered, this is simply not the case for many immunocompromised people, who have suffered isolation, hospitalization and death at significantly higher rates. As disability justice authors have long pointed out, people with disabilities always face the burden of adjusting their lives against an assumed, ableist normal. No assurance of masking effectively endangers many immunocompromised and high-risk people. Under the social model of disability, institutional neglect to enforce COVID mitigation is what creates disability as a form of social oppression.

The activist movements some politicians now condemn have led the way in public health practice. Participants at the Columbia University student encampment wore masks, while people with disabilities and activists have engaged in education and tough conversations regarding the importance of masking, even in leftist spaces.

Also, because COVID is a world-scale problem, it requires international cooperation that would weaken U.S. military, economic and geopolitical hegemony. In 2020, the U.S. and European Union blocked a proposal at the World Trade Organization to waive intellectual property (IP) protections so Global South nations could begin building productive capacity for vaccines and medical technology. Intellectual property regimes and patents have been a mainstay of U.S. policy since World War II through trade agreements and multilateral banking institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Patent holders can hoard technology and resources that Global South nations might otherwise access freely or more cheaply. This financial power allows the U.S. to impose unilateral economic sanctions on official enemy states – Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe – which block medicine, food and technology, harming the population. Moves away from masking and COVID awareness further downplay the ongoing urgency to end IP and sanctions regimes for the sake of global public health.

Thus, structural changes to U.S. society are needed to address the underlying social conditions that spread illness. We can learn from the 1951 Civil Rights Congress’ We Charge Genocide petition that defined genocide as the “willful creation of conditions making for premature death, poverty and disease.”

On housing, failure to extend eviction moratoria in 2021 – a gift to landlords and real estate capital who treat homes as financial assets or sources of rent revenue – led to over 10,000 additional deaths. On criminal justice, there were calls to decarcerate as prisons are incubators of COVID, and continue questioning the social function of prisons at all. On employment, vulnerability to COVID in the workplace helped catalyze a wave of labor organizing. By downplaying COVID and banning masks, its most visible reminder, politicians help bury these important lessons.

Universities remind students and staff that their policies are consistent with county, state and CDC legal guidelines. But adherence to the U.S. Government’s public health orders is not sufficient when laws are inadequate or unjust. We can and should define our own ethos around disability, national and social liberation. Mask mandates, political education on who is vulnerable as well as public health measures to provide masks can enlist, educate and organize people toward that political project. Legislation that does not protect the vulnerable needs opposition. People should be enabled and encouraged to think for themselves when it comes to contemplating the extent to which lawmakers have the responsibility to protect their constituency.

Michael Kelly is a Ph.D student in the department of Geography and the Environment. He can be reached at mtkell424@gmail.com

Published on August 28, 2024 at 11:29 pm