OSU + discriminatory blood drives
A silent protest against the FDA policy that prohibits gay men from donating blood was held at Oregon State University this week. Several students and faculty members stood in silence in front of the Memorial Union.
It would be wonderful if OSU President Ed Ray would do what San José State University President Don W. Kassing did at the SJSU campus. President Kassing suspended all campus blood drives in protest of the FDA’s homophobic policy citing that the policy violates SJSU’s non-discrimination policy.
Oregon State University’s Institutional Policy on Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action states that OSU as “an institution of higher education and as a community of scholars, is committed to the elimination of discrimination and the provision of equal opportunity in education and employment.”
I hope that part of our institutional commitment to the elimination of discrimination would include prohibiting campus blood drives until the FDA removes their current policy.
The wordsmiths who crafted the OSU non-discrimination document were crafty in their wording of probably the most important component of the policy:
“Oregon State University, in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender identity or expression, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran’s status in any of its policies, procedures, or practices.”
Basically it allows those in charge to say that OSU does not discriminate against anyone’s sexual orientation….unless of course the federal government has a policy that is discriminatory, that would be okay, because we are still in compliance. Yuck!
Update: San Jose State University’s ban on campus blood drives is still in effect:
Amidst growing support from local government officials, the San Jose State University president announced Tuesday that the school’s blood drive suspension will continue in an effort to urge the Food and Drug Administration to change its ban on accepting blood donations from gay men.
U.S. Reps. Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren and Sam Farr issued a letter to the FDA asking the agency to consider updating the 16-year-old policy. In addition, Farr reportedly butted heads with FDA officials on the science behind the policy at a House Appropriations Committee hearing April 2.
“I am pleased to receive support from the congressional delegation for Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties,” President Don Kassing said in a prepared statement. “However, San Jose State’s campus blood drive suspension will remain in place.
“I remain steadfast in my belief that the FDA’s lifetime blood donor deferral affecting gay men violates our non-discrimination policy. Our policy is much more than a regulation. It is an expression of values we all share, most notably our core belief that people must be treated as individuals, free of prejudice.”
Related posts:
The actions of San Jose and your proposed action is reprehensible. To play games with human lives that could be at risk in the absence of blood that could be collected at a drive at OSU all to push a political agenda/position is disgusting. That person that needs blood in your area could be someone you know or care about. Think about that when you are suggesting such a protest. If you want to protect, that is your right, but there are ways to do that without putting politics over human lives.
FinanceBuzz
17 May 08 at 9:23 pm
You mean political games like, oh, I dunno. Saying that all gays are plague bearers? An institutionalized exclusion of anybody who has ever had any sort of male/male sexual contact, that still allows someone who sleeps with prostitutes or intravenous drug users to donate? Yes, I agree that those political games should probably end.
Aaron Walker
17 May 08 at 10:36 pm
This is one of the stupidest things I have seen in a long time. The FDA guidelines do not allow Blood Banks to accept blood from a man who has had sex with another man since 1977, along with about 50 other things that are all risk factors for diseases that can be transmitted by transfusion of blood products.
The fact that anyone who has one of the risk factors for disease transmission would even consider donating blood is beyond belief. The reasons the prohibitions are in place is because people with infectious diseases have donated in the past, in some cases infecting 100′s of innocent people with their disease.
This is even more alarming in the that the upcoming memorial day weekend is typically a weekend holiday when blood products are in short supply and people who need these blood products to live may not be able to get them if you keep others who are eligible from donating.
The prohibitions that are in place are based upon science, with the stated goal of saving lives. Take your stupid political agenda somewhere else.
Marc
17 May 08 at 10:39 pm
As an alum of OSU a couple times over and a health professional I would urge you to review this issue more closely. I understand people’s feelings that they shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their orientation. Note,these are feelings. The blood services do not classify people as homosexual or not, the scientific community and aids community has realigned their studies and terminology to MSM or men who have sex with men as this is more appropriate. This is a high risk group who by in large (born out by public health studies) have a larger STI burden and riskier behaviors. It has nothing to do with feelings….it’s a fact. It’s easy to get into why this is, it’s a social problem that should be dealt with as such, not by politically minded people or
Please read the following:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/table17.htm
I know facts and statistics for most people aren’t interesting. They require thinking, contemplation, and suspension of beliefs and emotion. Often the contradict widely held conceptions. But for this debate, they are the debate. The media and most people don’t read these charts or information, please do so.
It’s unproductive for the blood services to spend their time and effort adding a supply line in that increases their rates of products that have unwanted disease in them. This leads to increased rejected blood. And believe it or not NO test is 100%, there is little black or white in science contrary to many of the lay public. There is always an error rate, always. Leave these decisions to the scientists, doctors, and public health professionals. There will always be blood out there that gets past tests and kills people. I repeat, kills people. I know some will argue that some heterosexual people are just as risky, but the studies just don’t show that. Transmission rates from high risk acts are just that, high risk, and happen more frequently in some populations, that’s why they are excluded. I for one do not feel comfortable explaining to a child with hemophilia, mother who just gave birth, person who got hit by a car, who got blood why they got HIV from a blood product (yes, blood come in many forms of derivative products) that aren’t just used for blood transfusions. Platelets, plasma, immunoglobulin.
People need to become less selfish and consider how they may effect other people. This life is not all about the individual, sometimes to protect innocent people we may have to make some generalizations when it comes to public health. Just because you have sex with the same sex doesn’t make you a bad person or inferior, it just brings with it currently because of actions of those in that group a set of risks that make taking blood products a riskier proposition. Some sort of screening needs to be done, please leave that to the professionals and find some other more productive issue that moves us along not, sets us back.
thanks for listening.
Think don't feel
17 May 08 at 11:55 pm
The fact that anyone would think it appropriate to penalize patients injured in accident or natural disasters, by denying them needed blood donations, solely to make a political point of dubious effectiveness, is truly disgusting.
The realization that supposedly literate and educated people would support this evil and dangerous attitude, makes me afraid for the future of the human race. It also lends great credibility to those voices who decry gays as being less moral than the other 90% of the human race.
Couple that perceived lack of concern for human suffering, with the very real possibility that we are very close to not only proving a genetic basis for gay orientation, but in fact, testing for the genetic marker that would prove it, and what you have here, is the beginning of the suicide of the gay culture.
Unless gays and lesbians begin to realize that their sexual orientation is NOT the most important aspect of their humanity, they will destroy what it is they seek to preserve and protect, with the probable result, that 100 years from now, there will not be a single gay person born on Earth.
Mick Wagner
18 May 08 at 1:05 am
Marc,
I wonder if you can explain to me why Eric Stoller should “Take your stupid political agenda somewhere else.” when this is ericstoller.com? Also, based upon science all blood donations are tested for HIV, so your argument is flawed. If we are testing the blood anyway and we want more blood, why wouldn’t the FDA want HIV negative blood? What other reason could it be then that the policy is homophobic?
Paul
18 May 08 at 1:58 am
The blame falls on those engaged in dangerous behavior. Lots of studies, lots of conclusions all point the same way.
Ben
18 May 08 at 3:00 am
Mick, how is it that you know what the most important piece of someone else’s humanity is?
Dennis
18 May 08 at 3:19 pm
Paul, you should read Think Don’t Feel’s response. To suggest that an organization is homophobic is a weak comeback. The homosexual “lobby” (for lack of a better term) has put their agenda ahead of more important matters in the past. They wanted a turn the United States military into a social experiment, even at the risk of weakening out national security. Now, they want to potential instill further risk into our national blood supply, again to sooth the feelings of the homosexual community. If I thought this protest was based on increasing the blood supply, I might see the point. However, this it is more about pushing an agenda with regard to any of the repercussions. If homosexuals feel their ability to help society is impeded by not being able to give blood, there are many ways they can volunteer or contribute that would raise no public health questions.
FinanceBuzz
18 May 08 at 6:23 pm
Eric,
I came across your site because I was doing a google image search for some Oregon pictures. I do enjoy blogs, and scanned yours, and I admit that I haven’t read it thoroughly (boy do you like to write:) In any case, I did notice that you write a lot about racism and discrimination and such, but I was wondering, besides awareness and gatherings, what do you do to help others that experience discrimination or are underprivileged? I don’t know, maybe you do help them, but talk is talk, and education is education, but help is needed. The tiny, silly issues in our country that you discuss, the one in AZ or the racists who aren’t going to listen, are minor in comparison to the great needs that are beyond our borders. There are millions of orphans and widows and refugees whose needs are things like schooling, food, clothing, jobs, medical care. As I said, maybe you do address these things, and I missed it, but for a leftist-whatever-the-description-was, your perspective might need to open up a little and see the bigger picture.
Maybe a help,
A concerned reader
No thanks
20 May 08 at 2:51 pm
Oooohhhh! Concern troll!
Dennis
20 May 08 at 5:34 pm
I am a OSU alumni myself and a student affairs professional. I struggled as an undergrad with this same topic and felt half guilty whenever I gave blood. Sort of damned if I do damned if I don’t. I even spoke to my homosexual friends about the issue. In the end I chose to give blood but also to wear the pins that supported the right of anyone to give as long as they are tested. Not sure if they still give those pins out from the LGBTQQIA community. I have to agree with some of the people that posted above. I could not walk away and not help those that might need my blood no matter what the agenda was. I wish the rules were not as they are, but I also could not justify not giving blood. its not like the blood was destined to go to a homophobic person. My loved one, or even yours might need that blood and I could not live with myself if I did not give. As far as what people as saying about the statistics of men who have sex with men being at a higher risk for infection then why don’t they do the same sort of rules as they do with tattoos. Something like I am a ma who has had sex with a man in the last year. Or I have had unprotected sex with a man in the last 2 years. Its something.
alumni
25 May 08 at 9:39 pm
@Alumni – I think that the FDA will not repeal this homophobic policy until those who are in power or are impacted economically ask for a change. Banning campus blood drives forces the Red Cross to ask the FDA to re-think this policy. Those who are in power will be forced to listen to marginalized voices. It reminds me of the Civil Rights Movement and/or the Women’s Rights Movement. Real change occurred when those who were in power had to listen to people who they oppressed.
The FDA policy will not simply be eradicated because of a few campus protests. Those in power at colleges/universities (campus Presidents) have the power to affect change because an entire campus that no longer holds blood drives sends a powerful message to the powers at be.
@No Thanks – “The tiny, silly issues in our country that you discuss…” – I guess I didn’t realize that racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, heterosexism, etc. were “tiny, silly issues.” Maybe it’s because they are neither silly nor tiny issues. They are immense issues that affect everyone in this country. It takes an immense amount of privilege and ignorance to dismiss institutions of oppression. I write about these issues because I feel that it’s important to get the word out to asshats like yourself that these issues are important.
Eric Stoller
26 May 08 at 9:50 am