The Associated Students of the University of Wyoming voted Nov. 13 in a close 20-28 decision to ban blood drives on campus that discriminate against homosexual men.
In a controversial stand that some called the discrimination versus the right to life conundrum, the University of Wyoming joined an increasing number of campuses moving toward a ban on the policy.
Currently, organizations such as the American Association of Blood Banks and the American Red Cross do not allow men who have had sex with another man after 1977 to be blood or tissue donors.
Many students feel the policy is discriminatory because other high-risk behaviors are not treated with such a zero-tolerance policy.
Those in favor of the change said that high-risk behaviors such as number of sexual partners, drug use and safe sex techniques would be a better gauge, regardless of sexual preference.
Blood banks have shown some willingness to change the policy, but the organizations’ hands are tied until the United States Food and Drug Administration changes its rules.
Several senators stated that their constituents were often split on whether they were in favor of the resolution.
“What I find most compelling as evidence of discrimination is that African American women are now the most at-risk population in the U.S., but it would be racist if we said African American women couldn’t donate blood,” Sen. Alex Brink said.
Most senators agreed the policy is discriminatory. Those who were against the resolution were concerned that a more fair policy would come at the price of the lives saved by blood and tissue donations.
“I will be voting as a representative from the College of Health Sciences,” Sen. Megan Kolf said. “They were concerned about the possible deadly consequences if this goes through.”
Sen. Megan Darrow said she was very much against the discriminatory policy.
“However, doing it this way is putting people’s lives in danger. People depend on blood donations in this community to survive. To say we are okay with taking away blood drives on campus, we are taking away some people’s life source,” Darrow said.
Another contentious part of the debate was whether the resolution does anything. The legislation is a recommendation and does not cause any action. The resolution will go before the UW Board of Trustees to let them know the students’ opinion on the topic. The board may then take action. Some senators like Sen. Brody Tate were for the resolution because it “requires no action” and others like Sen. Hunter Christensen were against it because it “doesn’t do anything.”
“The majority of constituents I have talked with have been opposed to this bill because they feel it is a misguided effort and doesn’t in effect help anyone because it is only a resolution,” Christensen said.
Sen. Mitchell Nedved said the purpose of a resolution is to make statement.
“It will go to the Board of Trustees to show that it is an issue. Since this is a resolution, we are not taking away any blood. We are saying we believe in equal rights and all that this resolution states without having to take any blame,” Nedved said.
Will Welch, a graduate student in chemistry, addressed the senate as a full-time, fee-paying student. He and several students testified to the embarrassment experienced when a student finds out that he cannot donate.
“I wanted to give you that illustration of what it’s like to be a gay person who wants to donate blood and wants to save lives and has absolutely no risk factor,” Welch said. “Simply because I am gay, blood banks will discriminate against me.”
The issue will go now to the board of trustees to decide on a course of action.
