'Beginnings of Marathons'
Making sense out
of blood drive nonsense
David Zugnoni
Issue date: 2/13/08 Section: Opinion
|
On the surface, the decision just makes sense.
At a news conference yesterday, Kassing said the issue emerged when a university employee complained that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy was discriminatory. If he neglected the complaint, there's a good chance more pressure would come his way from students and other employees.
Not only is defending a university policy that promotes equal rights an easy decision, especially in California, but it's also much easier to tell some nurses with a van to take SJSU off their list of destinations than to explain to 30,000-plus why he can't own up to a policy that protects the equality for which billions have fought.
So it's an easy decision, almost typical, despite this being the first time a college has made it.
But, on the other hand, it's oversensitive and makes no sense at all.
How does suspending blood donation correlate with establishing equal rights?
Is that even discrimination if the people who aren't allowed to donate blood on campus aren't allowed to donate anywhere else in the country?
All other federal laws are enforced on campus. Will the politically correct freaks of SJSU find more laws to fight?
What if every single college did this? What if city or county governments started banning blood drives to protect the rights of their citizens?
Donating blood would become much more of a hassle than just walking a few blocks off campus.
Suddenly, if you don't own a car, you can't get to a blood donation station, and an already precious supply of blood would decrease dramatically.
What sense does that make?
Oh, but I've missed the point, for making sense logically is sometimes the least sensible thing to do - especially when trying to make a statement.
If a decision lacks a logical base, then there must be something more important than logic behind it - maybe a principle.
"For me, it's a real fundamental principle that this place doesn't discriminate against anybody," Kassing said during yesterday's news conference.
Ah, that sounds refreshing, doesn't it?
It's nice to know that this isn't just some silly war of policies.
"Policy" is the worst word in our language.
Policies are just easy ways out of a discussion. They are simple, no-questions-asked ways to end an argument.
If a man fills out a questionnaire before donating blood and indicates that he has had sex with another man, the nurse tells him he can't donate blood.
"Why?" he asks.
"It's the policy," the nurse says. "Sorry, there's nothing I can do."
Can't argue with that, I suppose. The man knows he can't twist the nurse's arm because it's not up to the nurse. It's up to a policy.
But the policy may be flawed, and we would have just continued to adhere to it if not for this recent blood drive ban.
News outlets across the country reported SJSU's suspension of on-campus blood drives, and if other institutions protest as this university has, Rip Van Winkle at the FDA will have to eventually wake up and listen.
The ban itself may not make much sense, but it could begin an overdue discussion about the FDA policy, and that might make things a lot more sensible in the end.
I'd like to see a world without policies, but if we must have them, it would be nice if we could talk about them from time to time and decide what to do with them.
Related Stories:
Feb. 13, 2008: University stands alone in blood policy
Feb. 13, 2008: President fields questions from campus media
Feb. 12, 2008: Controversy no longer local
Feb. 7, 2008: Plot thickens in wake of blood drive suspension
Feb. 7, 2008: Where to donate blood off campus
Feb. 4, 2008: President halts blood drives; policy questioned
Jan. 30, 2008: Blood drives stopped
Feb. 7, 2008: Opinion: This Queer Life: Bad Blood
Feb. 4, 2008: Opinion: Making a deadly situation worse
Poll: Do you agree with SJSU's blood drive ban?
Other Links:
Letter from President Kassing
Other links from the President's office
Be the first to comment on this story