04
Bleeding Green-and-Gold
Why am I leaving Vermont? What were my cryptic "personal and political reasons"? Well, here's the main one -- as written, below, in a wordy piece for UVM's LGBTQA Community Newsletter, which was adapted from an earlier blog post -- the American Red Cross, and their discriminatory presence on the UVM campus. I've found myself becoming more and more of an activist at UVM in recent months, but ultimately the fight has been too much for me. I need to take care of myself, and I need to go.
But I do hope that I leave behind an impact. People say that I will. Today I received two UVM leadership awards for my work on this issue. Awards mean nothing, ultimately, but I am hopeful that I have affected real change at this institution. Whether I'm here or not, the fight will go on.
Here's the piece, "Bleeding Green-and-Gold":
As of June 30th, I will no longer be an employee of the University of Vermont, an institution that has been my home for six and a half years, as a student and then as a staff member. I recently made the difficult decision to leave a great job in an excellent department, the catalyst being discrimination I face on this campus as a gay man, discrimination that is allowed and publicly supported by UVM's current administration.
Sexual orientation is a protected class at UVM, according to our non-discrimination policy, and has been since March 1987. In 1992, a Vermont state law was passed also protecting sexual orientation. Further, the core values of the University, "Our Common Ground" -- values I believe in very deeply -- pledge a commitment to fight against "oppression, degradation, and harassment" -- "injustice" -- of all kinds.
However, the University of Vermont currently allows the American Red Cross to hold and aggressively promote blood drives on campus. The Red Cross, in accordance with federal Food & Drug Administration guidelines, currently bars any "male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977" from giving blood for life. In other words, any gay or bisexual UVM student, faculty, or staff member is not allowed to donate, and therefore not allowed the choice to participate in an activity that is taking place on campus. UVM publicly supports this discrimination against gay and bisexual men, according to statements by its administration printed in the Burlington Free Press and other media.
Recently, headlines have inaccurately screamed things like, "Red Cross calls for equal treatment of gay blood donors." This is simply not true. The organization has indeed changed their stance on this blood ban -- but only slightly. According to the press, the Red Cross is only urging the FDA to "relax" its lifetime ban on donations from men who have had sex with men since 1977 to a 1-5 year waiting period, not doing away with it. This "progress" means that any sexually active gay man is still barred from giving blood, because it continues to base guidelines not on specific risky behaviors, but on sexual orientation. This means that I, as a gay man, can never give blood unless I become celibate for over a year, something that is not expected of my straight peers. There is nothing "equal" about this treatment. UVM currently seems to be hiding behind this "progress" and continues to allow blood drives to occur on our campus.Posted by Patrick on 05/ 4/06 at 3:01 PM
I am deeply hurt by this discrimination and the presence of the Red Cross on campus, and I have been for all my years at UVM. In the past year, however, things have become harder for me as these blood drives have taken place right outside of my office, in the Billings North Lounge, literally feet from my office door. The proximity to my workspace has taken its toll. The issue has been completely unavoidable for me and caused me to begin to resent this institution. This is why I have to leave.
I was born here -- literally on the UVM campus, in what is now known as the Fletcher Allen Medical Center. I like to think that I began my life here at UVM twice -- first as a ruddy, redheaded newborn in 1980, and again as a transfer student in 2000. I think I learned more in the past six and a half years than in the nineteen before them, not necessarily from my studies, but from life. My time here has been filled with soaring victories and crushing defeats, highs and lows... This place made me the man I am today.
And the man that UVM has made me is, ironically, a man who cannot stand to be a part of this institution any longer. I realize that change may come someday, but not fast enough. I realize that this is not a fight I can win, and the cost to me personally has already been too great. Despite the best efforts of some brave students and staff, UVM refuses to budge, to do the right thing and kick the Red Cross off campus. This is a test and UVM's administration, including President Fogel, has so far failed miserably.
I love this place so much that I practically bleed green-and-gold -- and this administration, by proxy, is telling me that my blood is worthless and that the Red Cross is more important than my rights and feelings, not to mention the campus climate.
I'm leaving now because I can still say that I love this place. I'll leave behind friends and family, amazing colleagues, inspiring students, and a city that feels like a part of me. In Burlington and at UVM, I found, for the first time since I was nine years old, a place to truly call home. I leave now because I can still call this place home, because I hope I will always be able to, even as I search for a new place to belong.
Thank you, UVM, for an invaluable six-and-a-half year education. This last lesson is perhaps the hardest, and the one I didn't want to learn from this place. But I have faith that, someday, the FDA will get rid of this ban, and until then, that UVM -- be it under President Fogel or some future administration -- will do the right thing and kick the Red Cross off campus. Until then, my green-and-gold blood will pump elsewhere.
Categorized: UVM Vermont
Tagged:
Comments
Good for you for taking a stand, and growing personally because of it.
Boston, New York (what, not Utah?!), wherever you go... they'll be lucky to have ya.
Posted by Nick on 05/ 4/06 at 5:59 PM04
Yeah, Nick's right! We need you in Utah! (Well, once I get back to Idaho in two months.)
I remember the blood drive from last year, and how upset you were. I didn't know it was that strong of a conviction for you.
I can't begin to understand how hard this decision must have been for you, but admire you for standing up for your convictions.
Posted by Rick on 05/ 4/06 at 9:59 PM05
06
The first time I found out that I couldn't give blood it made mine boil. Then followed by the realization that the necessity breeds responsibility in ways that we don't expect. Totally on the mark, sir.
Posted by Alden on 05/ 6/06 at 11:06 AM07
So you're leaving b/c they allow the Red Cross on campus--an organization limited by the misguided FDA but one that is still an essential, invaluable public service? I can understand the frustration but if you really believe that's why you are leaving you are in denial about something or your priorities are really fucked up. Methinks you have reasons that are far more pressing.
P.S. Though the Red Cross isn't more important than your rights it is more important than your feelings, you whiny drama queen.
Posted by T.K. on 05/ 7/06 at 7:18 AM07
What would you have the Red Cross do? I don't approve of their discrimination, but they seem to be letting statistics guide their policies...
Posted by Cibbuano on 05/ 7/06 at 6:55 PM07
To T.K. -- you of the anonymous comment, the San Fran ip address, and the venomous tounge --
The Red Cross like to hide behind the FDA, to play the role of the victim here, the helpless messenger of the government, but in fact the Red Cross SUPPORTED the blood ban back in 2000, the last time it was up for consideration with the FDA. The vote was close, 6-7 in favor of keeping the ban. The Red Cross could have taken a stand against this discrimination, and possibly overturned the ban, but it didn't. Here's a article from '00 from the Red Cross' own website, with their justification: http://www.redcross.org/news/archives/2000/9-15-00b.html . (I love the "has kept the blood supply virtually free of tainted blood" rationale. As my roommate says, more people should be using that rationalization to justify wrong action-- "it may be wrong to keep minorities out of our town, but hey, it's kept the restaurant food virtually free of waste products!")
The Red Cross has the power to make change, which is exactly why we need to be putting the pressure on them. This year, the organization has decided to change it's stance -- they are now advocating that the FDA change their guidelines about men who have had sex with men -- to "relax" its ban on msm donors, meaning instead of a lifetime ban on any man who's had sexual contact, even once, with a member of the same sex, it wants it to "only" be a one-to-five year waiting period. Though the headlines are stating the Red Cross wants "equal treatment" for gay male donors, it is my understanding that it wants us treated the same way as its other "unfavorables" -- those who have sex with prostitutes, drug users, etc. -- with a similar waiting period, and in that case, perhaps even a longer one. I don't call this progress if I still can't give blood until I become celibate for a year or more.
Think about it: An HIV-negative gay man in a monogamous and sexually active relationship of twenty years with another HIV-negative man still cannot give blood. But one of our UVM students, just back from a tropical spring break adventure, whom has had unprotected sex with ten strangers of the opposite gender, is a valued donor and would be welcomed to North Lounge or another on campus venue to give their blood. That's not about statistics. That's about identity. And that's wrong.
My point, T.K., is that the Red Cross is asking the WRONG question. I'm disturbed that the Red Cross thinks it's "progress" is enough. I'm disturbed that people think I/we should drop this issue, or that the issue should never be raised in the first place. We have to keep pushing this until the Red Cross asks the right question -- the only one: "Have you engaged in unsafe sexual activity since your last HIV test?" That's a question does not involve any particular sexual identity or racial group. That's a questions doesn't discriminate.
As I already stated, the Red Cross isn't the sole reason I am leaving Vermont, but it's the reason I am leaving now, the catalyst if you will. But make no mistake: my leaving is an act of protest. My priorities are not "fucked up." My reasons and my convictions are my own and I stand by them.
And P.S.? I am a whiny drama queen, but not in this case. My feelings ARE more important than allowing a discriminatory organization to hold discriminatory activities on campus, no matter how noble their activities might be. Discrimination is about rights. Oppression is all about "feelings."
Posted by Patrick Raymond on 05/ 7/06 at 9:14 PM07
09
Didn't anyone ever tell you that life isn't fair? So you can't give blood and you don't
like the policies of a particular organization. Get over it. Your rights are not being
violated.
You are not oppressed. Oppression is when somebody mutilates your genitals, forces you
to stay at home because of your gender, forces you to cover your body in public, sells
you into slavery, ships you off to a concentration camp because of your faith or
ethnicity. And here you are bitching because some stupid organization is allowed on
campus. Big freaking deal.
You are a white male in a place where to be a white male is to be king. Take a step back
and get a realistic perspective. Do you know how many millions of people in the world
would kill to be in your position? How many starving, diesnfranchised, sick, suffering
people would give anything to be a healthy, educated, american with a world of
opportunities before you and you are sitting around complaining about how hurt you are by
some stupid organization and their policies.
Would you rather NOT have the red cross on campus, collecting blood which will help
hundreds of people, so that your feelings won't be hurt?
04