The University of Wyoming will only allow a few medical exceptions to wearing a face mask, but no religious exceptions will be valid.
The plan to reopen the University of Wyoming campus states that all faculty members, staff and students will be required to wear a face covering or mask while on university property.
Holly Bowlds, RN and nursing supervisor in Student Health on the UW campus, said that Student Health will not be responsible, as known at this time, for determining medical exceptions to wearing masks or writing excuses for students to disregard the UW policy to wear a face covering.
“Student Health will continue to see students via in person and telehealth appointments,” said Bowlds. “Appointments are necessary for all visits, including injection and immunizations. There will be a limited number of same-day appointments available for urgent health concerns. Nursing triage visits will also still be available if scheduling is limited.”
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) states there are few medical excuses credible enough to refuse to wear a mask. Children under the age of two, anyone with trouble breathing, or anyone who is unable to physically remove the mask themselves due to medical conditions do not have to wear masks.
“Masks will be required for everyone who enters our building,” said Bowlds. “If a student declines to wear a mask or face covering, we will be happy to schedule a telehealth visit for them. We encourage all students to abide by the policies and safe practices set by the university in order to keep our campus and community a safe place to live, work, and learn.”
A UW visiting lecturer who studies religions, Tammy Heise, said, “I know of no religious tradition that bans face coverings.”
The only religious excuse that Seth Ward, a professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, knows of is that Christians believe they are made in the image of God and wearing a face covering hides that belief.
Heise said, “For reasons that are not entirely clear, Americans did not maintain the practice of wearing face coverings to reduce the spread of air-borne illness.”
“However, they did adopt new practices to improve hygiene and therefore public health. Restrictions on spitting in public, for example, can be traced to this period. American evangelicals were leaders in public health reform at that time, and they very much believed that their religion required them to work to safeguard the health of others.”
The American Evangelicals adopted face coverings during the Spanish flu, some enthusiastically and some not so much, due to their religious commitment to help others said Heise. The European and American Christians have also been known to do this during pandemics.
“Like most people, I am concerned about the spread of coronavirus,” said Heise. “I am vigilant about following the current health guidelines — including wearing masks and maintaining physical distance — because I wish to protect the health of others. I hope that they will show the same care and consideration to me by doing the same.”
The CDC shares that there are other means to wearing a face covering if medical reasons prohibit certain types of masks. For instance, they recommend a clear face shield if the individual is deaf in order to still be able to read lips. They further say that individuals with mental health issues, intellectual or developmental disabilities, or other sensitivities preventing the use of masks should consult with their doctor to find an alternative.
“Given the best data and models about the spread of the virus we have, wearing masks can significantly reduce the risk of infecting others,” said professor of philosophy Franz-Peter Griesmaier. “Infecting others is clearly inflicting a harm, which in this case can range from mild to significant adverse health outcomes and even to death. Inflicting harm, or especially death, cannot be justified on religious grounds. This strongly suggests that even just risking inflicting significant harm on others cannot be justified on religious grounds either.”
Griesmaier said that not wearing a mask has the same analogous harm as driving under the influence. He gives this example and comparison, and he says nobody would come up with a religious excuse to allow driving under the influence so why should there be one for wearing a mask either. Both inflict harm on innocent individuals due to another individual’s negligence.
“Thus, from an ethical and moral perspective, refusing to wear masks is a deliberate decision to assume the risk of inflicting significant harm on others and thus cannot be morally justified even on religious grounds,” said Griesmaier.
