Second-Class Students: How Vaccine Mandates Create Educational Apartheid

By Aaron Lewis, Ph.D.

Apartheid, most infamously practiced in South Africa, was defined by legalized separation, enforced discrimination and normalized exclusion. It drew rigid lines between groups, systematically denying basic rights and opportunities to those deemed unfit by authorities.

Today, echoes of apartheid reverberate in a new arena: American education. Vaccine mandates in schools have created a modern form of separation, dividing students not by race but by compliance with health policies.

Children who do not meet mandate requirements are barred from classrooms, extracurricular activities and the social fabric of their school communities.

Vaccine mandates have given rise to a new educational apartheid, creating second-class students and denying them the fundamental rights of learning, inclusion and participation.

As we examine the impacts of these policies, it becomes clear that normalized exclusion is not a relic of history — it is a challenge facing our schools today.

Vaccine mandates mean normalized exclusion of children is everywhere

The machinery of apartheid operated not simply through laws, but through the world’s willingness to look away. For decades, political leaders and influential institutions, including figures in the U.S. Senate, either endorsed or ignored the reality of legalized, systematic exclusion.

While explicit statements of support were rare, several U.S. senators backed policies — such as President Ronald Reagan’s “constructive engagement” and opposition to economic sanctions — widely regarded as prolonging the apartheid regime. Jesse Helms and Larry Pressler were vocal opponents of anti-apartheid measures, arguing that sanctions would destabilize the region or empower undesirable forces.

When Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, senators, including Thad Cochran, Chuck Grassley, and Orrin Hatch, voted to sustain the veto, effectively allowing business as usual with the apartheid government.

The international community’s moral ambivalence allowed apartheid to flourish, normalized by bureaucratic justifications and cloaked in the rhetoric of “order” and “public good.”

The result was a generation of children denied not just access to education, but to the very fabric of society — barred from classrooms, playgrounds and the communal rites of passage that form the foundation of childhood.

In striking parallel, today’s vaccine mandate policies in American schools have been broadly accepted, with little public debate or sustained moral outrage.

The justification is different — “public health” instead of “public order” — but the effect is hauntingly similar. Students who do not comply are systematically excluded, while the majority look on, reassured by the supposed necessity of the rules.

Normalized exclusion has become policy, invisible to many because it is everywhere.

Then and now, the cost is borne most heavily by children.

In South Africa, generations faced trauma, lost opportunities and a pervasive sense of “otherness.” Today, in the U.S., children barred by vaccine mandates experience academic setbacks, social isolation, stigma and a loss of belonging.

History shows that normalized exclusion — whatever its justification — carries a profound human toll.

As a Black man, I find it especially troubling to witness support for these exclusionary policies within our own community — those who, given our shared history, should be most attuned to the dangers of sanctioned segregation.

After centuries marked by the trauma of the transatlantic slave trade, the indignities of Jim Crow, and the relentless fight for civil rights and belonging, how can we, of all people, fail to recognize the echoes of apartheid in these new forms of exclusion?

For those who champion diversity and inclusion, it is both shocking and deeply disheartening to see the normalization of policies that perpetuate the same patterns of alienation and othering that we have struggled so long to overcome.

History implores us to see these parallels — and to resist the repetition of old injustices in new forms.

Vaccine mandates transform schools into gatekeepers of compliance

For centuries, education has been recognized as the bedrock of democratic societies and a primary vehicle for personal advancement. International agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enshrine education as a fundamental human right, essential to every child’s development and dignity.

Vaccine mandates that exclude students undermine these core principles.

“No vaccine, no entry” policies transform schools from inclusive institutions into gatekeepers of compliance, denying access to those who cannot — or choose not to — meet medical criteria. The alternative, often presented as remote learning, is a poor substitute, failing to replicate the social, emotional and academic benefits of classroom participation.

Although vaccine mandates aimed to protect public health, mounting evidence — and admissions from former supporters — show these policies failed to achieve their goal. The promised protection did not materialize, leaving only the harms of exclusion.

What’s particularly troubling is that, despite the persistence of these policies, there is not a single piece of definitive evidence demonstrating that unvaccinated children pose a risk to their vaccinated peers.

Vaccination is meant to provide individual protection, yet unvaccinated students are singled out and marginalized, not because of proven harm, but due to unfounded fears and assumptions. Still, discrimination continues, reinforcing barriers rather than building understanding or community.

Evidence that these extremes were driven more by a desire for control than by legitimate health concerns can be seen in cases like that of Logan Hollar at Rutgers University. In a widely reported incident, Rutgers barred Hollar, an unvaccinated student, from participating in online classes — even though he was studying remotely from his own home, with no contact with other students.

Such policies defy public health rationale and reveal a deeper impulse to enforce compliance for its own sake.

When students are excluded from virtual learning environments based on vaccination status, it becomes clear these measures are not about safeguarding health, but about exerting control and reinforcing barriers — regardless of actual risk.

The impact extends beyond academics. Exclusion disrupts friendships, erodes self-esteem and can leave lasting psychological scars. For children, the message is clear: Their right to education — and, by extension, their place in society — is conditional.

What was once a universal right has become a privilege, contingent upon adherence to shifting health mandates — mandates that may fluctuate with outbreaks and in alignment with the interests of pharmaceutical companies poised to benefit from new treatments or vaccines.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, policy recommendations evolved rapidly with each new variant, sometimes coinciding with the rollout of updated pharmaceutical products, underscoring the complex interplay between public health policy and commercial interests.

In this new era, the legacy of exclusion lives on — not in the language of race, but in the language of policy, compliance and public health. The challenge before us is to recognize this new form of educational apartheid and to reclaim the principle that education is, and must remain, a right for all.

The rights of the few are subordinated to the anxieties of the many

The operationalization of vaccine mandates — and, at times, mask mandates — has transformed American education.

School policies now function as intricate gatekeeping systems, with compliance as the price of admission. Vaccine requirements have become the new litmus test for participation, determining not only who may enter the classroom but who may engage in the full spectrum of school life.

The consequences of these mandates are profound and far-reaching.

Across the nation, students have been barred from attending their neighborhood schools, sometimes mid-year, their educational trajectories disrupted by administrative decree. Families are compelled to seek alternative arrangements, often at significant personal and financial cost.

This disruption severs students from established school communities, depriving them of essential social development, extracurricular activities and, for some, critical special education services that cannot be replicated elsewhere. At the University of Virginia, more than 200 students were disenrolled ahead of the fall semester for failing to comply with the university’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

These measures exemplify the lasting impact these policies have on students’ academic and social well-being, highlighting the gravity of decisions that transform education from a universal right into a conditional privilege.

Officials and institutions justify these exclusions in the name of “safety”— asserting a duty to protect the collective health of the student body. Yet, in practice, this rationale often overrides the fundamental rights of individual students.

The balance has shifted: Schools once guardians of access and opportunity now function as enforcers of compliance. The ethos of education has quietly moved from nurturing to policing, from inclusion to exclusion.

In this climate, the rights of the few are subordinated to the anxieties of the many, and the foundational mission of public education is unmistakably transformed.

Unvaccinated children dismissed as threats to public health

As these practices have taken root, society’s response has been one of acquiescence, if not outright endorsement.

Media and policymakers during the pandemic often framed educational exclusion as a necessary, even virtuous, response to a public health emergency. The language of “community safety” became a shield against criticism, and dissent — no matter how reasoned or heartfelt — was swiftly marginalized.

Parents who questioned the impact of mandates, children who struggled with isolation, and educators who raised concerns about equity were all too often dismissed as “anti-science” or as threats to public health.

Yet, authentic scientific progress depends on the rigorous interrogation of prevailing narratives to ensure both efficacy and ethical responsibility.

To label dissenting voices as inherently oppositional to science is to misunderstand the very essence of scientific inquiry, which thrives on debate, evidence and constructive skepticism.

The silencing of concerns not only reinforced the legitimacy of exclusionary practices but also stifled the open dialogue necessary to address the genuine harms being inflicted — particularly on the most vulnerable members of our educational communities.

The consequences are lasting. A new stigma has emerged, branding non-compliant students and their families as outsiders within their own communities.

The creation of a second-class student population is not merely a theoretical risk; it is a lived reality for thousands of children denied full participation in the life of their schools.

Over time, such normalization of discrimination threatens the very ideals upon which public education was founded, sowing division and undermining the promise of equal opportunity.

In this context, the notion of equal opportunity is exposed as a farce — a hollow ideal, contradicted by the lived experiences of those who are systematically excluded.

Vaccine mandates teach children that dissent equals exclusion

Beyond the immediate logistical and legal ramifications, vaccine mandates in schools impose a subtler, yet profound, moral lesson on the next generation. The unspoken message is clear: Compliance is equated with worthiness, while dissent — regardless of its basis — results in exclusion.

In stark contrast to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s enduring call to judge individuals “by the content of their character” rather than superficial attributes, these policies teach children that belonging and access to opportunity depend not on character or effort, but on conformity to externally imposed requirements.

This inversion of ethical priorities risks eroding the foundational values of justice and equality that public education is meant to uphold.

The long-term effects of this paradigm are deeply troubling. As children internalize the notion that institutions will exclude those who do not comply, trust in those institutions begins to erode.

The fabric of community — already strained by recent polarization — frays further as divisions deepen between the “compliant” and the “excluded.” Educational and social inequalities are magnified, as those cast out fall further behind both academically and developmentally.

History warns us of the dangers of normalized discrimination. When exclusion becomes routine and unchallenged, it is not merely policy, but precedent.

By failing to contest these practices, we risk teaching our children that differential treatment is acceptable, so long as it is framed as necessary or inevitable. The moral cost is incalculable — a generation raised to equate justice with obedience and to view exclusion as an ordinary tool of governance.

When education is weaponized against dissenters, it loses its soul

We stand at a defining crossroads. To ignore the reality of mandated exclusion is to accept a new form of educational apartheid — one that divides, stigmatizes and ultimately diminishes us all.

It is imperative that we recognize these policies for what they are: a profound threat to the principles of equity and universal access that define public education.

Now is the time for public debate, for courageous policy reform and for a recommitment to the universal right to learn. We must restore education’s original promise — as a space for every child, regardless of circumstance, to grow, belong and flourish.

Let us remember: When education is weaponized against dissenters, it loses its soul. True learning flourishes only where every voice is cherished and every child is welcomed. The future of our society depends on our willingness to defend that right —for all.

Aaron Lewis, Ph.D., is a humanitarian and religious liberty advocate. He is also the author of the forthcoming book, “The Point Of No Return: An Examination of Irreversible Shifts in Society’s Core Institutions.”

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense. 

Do you have a story you’d like to share with the CHD Community? Click here for details.