Rutgers University has recently come under fire for its controversial and “absurd” vaccine mandate, which requires all students to receive the COVID-19 vaccine before enrolling for the upcoming academic year. This policy has sparked outrage among students, parents, and even state officials, who argue that the mandate is a gross violation of individual rights and an unnecessary measure given the current state of the pandemic.


Critics of the mandate point out that the COVID-19 vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus, and that its efficacy in preventing severe illness has been called into question by recent studies. They argue that the mandate is a clear example of government overreach and an infringement on personal freedoms.
State Senator Declan O’Scanlon has been one of the most vocal critics of the mandate, calling it “absurd” and suggesting that the state should cut funding to the university until the mandate is lifted. He argues that students should not be forced to choose between their education and their personal beliefs, and that the university’s decision to enforce the mandate is a clear example of discrimination.
The university’s policy has also been criticized for its lack of exemptions, with many students and parents expressing frustration over the fact that exemptions are not automatically granted and that students may not be able to live on campus even if they receive an exemption.
As the debate over the mandate continues, it remains to be seen whether Rutgers will ultimately be forced to reverse its policy. In the meantime, students and parents are left to grapple with the difficult decision of whether to comply with the mandate or seek education elsewhere.