“The first guy through the wall, he always gets bloody—always.”
This memorable line from the film Moneyball, delivered to Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane by Boston Red Sox owner John Henry, underscores a universal truth: challengers to power or the status quo often bear heavy criticism.
The Ohio County Board of Education’s recent decision to seek a legal opinion on Governor Patrick Morrisey’s executive order 7-25 concerning vaccine exemptions could mean they’ll be the first through the wall.
Although the board has not yet initiated any formal legal action against the administration or refused to comply, nor faced litigation from any parents of students within Ohio County Schools, its proactive stance moves this critical issue closer to legal clarity – a positive development.
“This is not a vaccine issue; this is an issue of constitutional law,” said David Croft, President of the Ohio County Schools Board of Education.
In a Tuesday appearance on Talkline, Croft effectively articulated the complex interplay of existing laws and orders. He correctly referenced the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Workman v. Mingo, which supports compulsory vaccination without exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. Additionally, he emphasized the board’s statutory obligations under West Virginia Code §16-3-4, mandating student vaccinations.
Croft’s analysis contrasts the clarity of established law with the Governor’s executive order, which attempts to provide a path for vaccine exemptions despite the legislature explicitly declining to codify such provisions. That’s a tough spot.
The Ohio County BOE deserves commendation for its initiative to clarify these constitutional boundaries. Should the forthcoming legal opinion align with the predominant consensus among legal analysts – indicating gubernatorial overreach – it is likely, based on Croft’s comments, that the board would support a recommendation from the county superintendent to deny enrollment to unvaccinated students.
As Croft aptly noted, parents who would dispute any such decision have access to relief through the courts. That is as it should be and would bring the entire matter to reckoning. It’s time.
The board’s action underscores awareness and respect for legislative intent. It is not merely that the legislature failed to pass an exemption, but that it explicitly chose not to enact one. That is significant and should carry weight in the debate. It carries none in the current paradigm.
Lastly, the language of the Governor’s guidance itself is revealing. By suggesting rather than mandating — the word was “should” not “must” — schools to admit students with exemptions, and “calling for” rather than ordering cooperation, the Governor signals awareness of the shaky legal ground beneath his directive. Such wording appears calculated for political leverage rather than legal enforceability.
Ohio County board members have taken a bold stand going this far and may soon face higher scrutiny depending on what comes from the order and what action they affirm as a result.
Will the state board and other county boards go through the wall with them to lessen the burden?
They should.
Will they?