Universities fear legal reprisals for asking students to defer

If the real reason for obliging students to defer (an equity issue as much as a contractual one) is capacity for social distancing, then there is a simple way to mitigate the injustice, at least for non-lab/practical courses: give in to the high likelihood that universities will not be able to consistently and continuously maintain the few hours of F2F they are promising in the teeth of spikes in infections and put all teaching on-line at least for the first semester (pending the roll-out of a vaccine). The argument for equity, especially for the students from disadvantaged backgrounds most unfairly treated by the algo-scandal, is sufficient justification and it must be within the wit and power of government and UUK to make the case for full fees to fund the extra costs involved in providing a good-quality on-line experience.

We live in even stranger times that I thought if universities are more worried about contractual comeback from asking students to defer than the legal liability which could arise if negligently overfilling campuses and trying to enforce face-to-face teaching when it is unwise to do so leads to avoidable staff or student deaths. Vice chancellors, pro Vice Chancellors and other senior decision makers might want to ask their legal advisors about the law relating to gross negligence manslaughter. Given the repeated warnings from staff within universities, the UCU and others about the dangers there can be little chance to hide behind a cloak of ignorance when faced with the prospect of conviction and imprisonment.