The American Red Cross is an invaluable organization that people throughout the world rely upon for survival. Millions of people donate their blood to aid others. Yet, the need for blood is always at a premium and additional selfless individuals are always in high demand.
After the recent blood drive held on the Fairfield campus, students were told that a recent tattoo, poor physical health due to sickness and a visit to a third-world country are not the only factors that limit a person’s ability to donate blood; sexual orientation is also cause of exclusion. This denies an entire group of individuals: Gay men.
The term ‘high risk behavior’ is rather vague and should not be automatically linked to gays. What is to prevent a heterosexual individual from lying about his or her possible drug use, sexual history or other “risky” behavior? It is the actions that must be individually evaluated, not the general lifestyle. Obviously individuals with HIV/AIDs or other harmful diseases transferable through blood should be barred from donating, and all blood should be tested no matter what. However, it is disgraceful, and even shameful, that the regulations automatically excludes an entire demographic of people, even if they are free of STDs, especially when donors are in such demand.
Those who show up to donate blood should never be turned away for such a discriminatory reason. Those who volunteer to donate blood are among the most responsible of individuals.
Biased blunder
The recent Connecticut Post article on disgruntled beach residents inaccurately portrayed University students living at the beach. The article, entitled “Animals upset Fairfield Beach residents,” seemingly intended to illustrate the problems of animal defecation in the area. However, the article goes unnecessarily beyond this, ultimately voicing complaints about Fairfield students’ behavior.
Not only does the article’s title communicate a comparison of students to animals, specifically to horses and dogs that defecate on beach property, but this is a gross example of a journalistic error – one that misleads the reader with unrelated content. This forced and unnecessary juxtaposition communicates a biased perspective that is unsubstantiated by statistics and police reports. As student journalists we hold ourselves and the Post to the highest standards; this is simply not acceptable. Equally unacceptable is the University turning a blind eye to such an insult of its own students.
Yes, there have been notable incidents in the past involving students at the beach, but we expect that the Post reports on the current and relevant happenings.
Leave a Reply