Using the moral intensity framework to examine whether colleges should have reopened in late 2020 for in-person learning: an in-depth analysis of data from the United States with global implications for higher education

The decision whether to reopen universities for in-person learning in late 2020 relied on ethical decision-making where the consequences were dire to the mission of the institution, health of the community, financial well-being of the institution and employees, and had political ramifications. The risks that universities faced worldwide included health risks to students, faculty, staff, and the community; financial risks to the institution and employees; and mission risks of the institution. Each of these risks had ethical implications. University reopening decisions were made in the United States as the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths were surging globally. Applying a moral intensity framework that assesses the in-person learning decision against six dimensions and using data collected from 62 universities, we show that social consensus and risk mitigation measures designed to reduce the magnitude of consequences and temporal immediacy were important factors in deciding to offer in-person classes. An ex-post facto analysis of COVID-19 infection and death data suggests that university administrators made an ethical decision. When facing a similar crisis management scenario in the future, a moral intensity framework could help university administrators worldwide understand the issues and allow them to make an ethical decision.