Abstract
In their efforts to fight against tightening of school immunization requirements anti-vaccine activists have repeatedly claimed that such tightening discriminates against, or even segregates, intentionally non-vaccinated children. They have drawn on language and imagery created in response to racial discrimination against minority groups. This essay explains why such claims are legally incorrect - and pragmatically inappropriate. First, unvaccinated children are meaningfully different from the vaccinated. Second, not vaccinating is a choice, and not an immutable characteristic. Treating non-vaccinating parents differently is closer to different treatment of those who drink and drive than to different treatment of racial minorities. Finally, the use of the discrimination language is troubling here. Most parents that do not vaccinate (though not all) belong to privileged groups. Vaccine refusal is much more common among white, middle class people. Using the language created to protect disadvantaged minorities from oppression in this context is incorrect and jarring.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
