2008 Woodie Awards
SSU reacts to Academic Senate's resolution to ban blood drives
Cheyenne Lee
Issue date: 4/29/08 Section: News
In a rare standoff, the Academic Senate voted to support a blood drive ban on April 24, despite the Associated Students, Inc.'s (ASI) resolution against the ban, which was adopted on April 2.
The Academic Senate said its goal was to uphold SSU's clear non-discrimination policy, which includes sex and gender discrimination. The ban was approved 21 to 13.
Tempers flew among students and faculty as the ban opponents accused its supporters of willfully bringing about deaths.
"The prevention of the blood bank's SSU blood drives would deprive those in need of blood transfusions, and the pernicious repercussions of eliminating the blood drives cannot be ignored by those who would suspend this program," wrote the ASI in their resolution.
Health Center Director Georgia Schwartz argued on Senate-Talk, a campus uncontrolled list serve, that there must be other ideas on how to combat discrimination on campus without attacking the blood supply.
"I believe that inhumanity extracts the greatest cost from society, whether it expresses itself as discrimination or unnecessarily intervening in the flow of life saving blood from our campus to those who need it," said Schwartz.
Opponents of the ban felt that enough donors were already being turned away during the blood drives, and that closing them completely would be detrimental.
Ban opponent Lillian Lee said that even a recent tattoo or abnormal temperature could stop someone who wanted to donate blood from donating.
"I myself was unable to donate recently because the needle hit a valve in my vein preventing blood to flow easily and a second attempt would likely have failed because I had not properly hydrated myself," explained Lee.
The controversy of the ban came about because of the Blood Bank of the Redwood's continued refusal to allow male homosexuals to donate. They cited the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) restrictions on donors, and constantly insisted they were just following the law. In fact, they said they wanted the reverse, if it was in their power.
The Academic Senate said its goal was to uphold SSU's clear non-discrimination policy, which includes sex and gender discrimination. The ban was approved 21 to 13.
Tempers flew among students and faculty as the ban opponents accused its supporters of willfully bringing about deaths.
"The prevention of the blood bank's SSU blood drives would deprive those in need of blood transfusions, and the pernicious repercussions of eliminating the blood drives cannot be ignored by those who would suspend this program," wrote the ASI in their resolution.
Health Center Director Georgia Schwartz argued on Senate-Talk, a campus uncontrolled list serve, that there must be other ideas on how to combat discrimination on campus without attacking the blood supply.
"I believe that inhumanity extracts the greatest cost from society, whether it expresses itself as discrimination or unnecessarily intervening in the flow of life saving blood from our campus to those who need it," said Schwartz.
Opponents of the ban felt that enough donors were already being turned away during the blood drives, and that closing them completely would be detrimental.
Ban opponent Lillian Lee said that even a recent tattoo or abnormal temperature could stop someone who wanted to donate blood from donating.
"I myself was unable to donate recently because the needle hit a valve in my vein preventing blood to flow easily and a second attempt would likely have failed because I had not properly hydrated myself," explained Lee.
The controversy of the ban came about because of the Blood Bank of the Redwood's continued refusal to allow male homosexuals to donate. They cited the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) restrictions on donors, and constantly insisted they were just following the law. In fact, they said they wanted the reverse, if it was in their power.
Be the first to comment on this story