Case Teaching Resources
FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Box 353055 · University of W ashington · Seattle W A
98195-3055
www.hallway.org
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply: San José State
University’s Blood Drive Ban
San José State University Suspends Campus Blood Drives
On January 29, 2008, Don W. Kassing, President of San José State University (SJSU),
announced that he was suspending indefinitely all blood drives taking place on the SJSU
campus, plus any drives taking place elsewhere that were arranged by employees
representing the University or by official student organizations. In a letter to the campus
community, Kassing explained that the ban was a result of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)’s lifetime blood donor deferral policy for homosexual men. The
policy disallows men who have engaged in sexual activity with another man since 1977
from contributing to the blood supply. Following an investigation prompted by concerns
about the fairness of the policy brought to the campus Office for Equal Opportunity by a
University employee, Kassing and his administrative staff determined that holding
campus blood drives that denied participation to men who engage in sexual activity with
other men violated the public University’s non-discrimination policy, which explicitly
prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (see Exhibit A).
In justifying the decision, Kassing’s letter to the campus community noted that the FDA’s
policy was enacted in 1983 when the risks of AIDS transmission via blood transfusion
were first recognized but argued that the policy had never been relaxed even as blood
testing technology reduced current risks to levels so low that experts could no longer
measure them directly. In fact, he pointed out that AABB (formerly known as the
American Association of Blood Banks), America’s Blood Centers and the American Red
Cross all had reviewed data on the risks and taken the position that the lifetime ban was
unwarranted. Yet the FDA had made no move to undertake additional research nor
disclosed when an FDA committee might vote again on the deferral policy. While
acknowledging that a university the size of SJSU (32,000 students and 5,700 employees)
constituted a potentially important supply of blood donations, Kassing felt a blood drive
suspension was warranted. “Our purpose is to respect our policy of non-discrimination
and the climate that the policy is intended to create on our campus,” the letter explained.
“I have also asked the FDA to contact me so we can discuss this issue further.
Specifically, I’d like to discuss timing for additional studies and the next FDA committee
vote on the matter.”
This case was prepared by Jason A. Grissom, assistant professor of public affairs, and Jiaqi Liang, MPA student, both of
the Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri. The case is intended solely as a vehicle for
classroom discussion, and is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of the situation described.
The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs.
This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission,
email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy
permission for educational purposes per Member’s Agreement (www.hallway.org).
Copyright 2008 The Electronic Hallway
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
Response to Kassing’s decision was both immediate and national in scope. The story was
covered by major media outlets nationwide after being picked up by the Associated Press.
Many students and university staff cheered the University’s move, and Kassing reported
receiving numerous telephone calls and e-mails from the campus community voicing
strong support for the decision (1). “He [Kassing] was sending a clear message—not that
saving lives is unimportant to this university but that saving lives is just as important to
this university as is the civilized, equal treatment of the gay community. Support Kassing.
Gay blood is not bad blood,” wrote an opinion columnist for the Spartan Daily, the
campus newspaper (2). Proponents believed that SJSU’s decision could effectively raise
awareness of policy discrimination against gay men without posing major obstacles to
potential donors since other outlets for blood donations were still available off-campus.
As a San José Mercury News columnist put it, “Symbolism—loudly saying no more until
the rule changes—can have an important impact. It makes people face the ugliness of
discrimination” (3).
However, support for the blood drive suspension was far from universal. Some students
and blood collecting organizations thought Kassing’s move would preclude many
students from donating blood and that what the University ought to do was facilitate
blood donations rather than create a hindrance. A recent alumnus quoted in a Spartan
Daily story summed up the way many members of the community felt: “The University
shouldn’t take it out on people who need blood and have nothing to do with this decision”
(4). Rather than exerting positive influence on national policy, representatives from the
nearby Stanford Blood Center suggested that SJSU’s tactics “could have a devastating
impact on the blood supply” (5). “We feel that this was a terribly misguided decision,”
said Lisa Bloch, spokeswoman for the Blood Center of the Pacific (6).
While it was estimated that that the approximately 1,000 pints of blood collected at SJSU
each year made up only 1 percent of total blood donations in the San Francisco Bay Area,
blood collection organizations worried that a dangerous precedent was being set. AABB
noted that SJSU’s action had stimulated “concern among blood collectors who fear that
more widespread adoption of this policy by other institutions could have a negative
1 Kassing, Don W. (21 February 2008). “Blood Drives Decision.” Memo posted on SJSU web site. Retrieved from
http://www.sjsu.edu/president/communications/blooddrives/decision.html.
2 Rizzo, Michael. (07 February 2008). “This Queer Life: Bad Blood.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/02/07/Opinion/This-Queer.Life.Bad.Blood3194781.shtml.
3 Herhold, Scott. (10 February 2008). “SJSU Takes High Road on Blood Drives.” The Mercury News. Retrieved from
http://nl.newsbank.com/.
4 Tsao, Kimberly. (07 February 2008). “Plot Thickens in Wake of Blood Drive Suspension.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/02/07/News/PlotThickens.In.Wake.Of.Blood.Drive.Suspension-3194699.shtml.
5 Oremus, Will. (02 February 2008). “SJ State’s Blood Drive Ban Called Misguided.” Oakland Tribune. Retrieved from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080202/ai_n24349912.
6 Allen, Arthur. (06 February 2008). “San Jose State Bans Red Cross over FDA Rule.” The Washington Independent.
Retrieved from http://washingtonindependent.com/view/san-jose-state-bans.
2
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
impact on blood collection” (7). Furthermore, suspending on-campus blood donations
might risk “losing out on a generation of blood donors,” said Michele Hyndman, Stanford
Blood Center’s public relations manager, who noted that “donating blood at a school
blood drive is often the first time somebody is exposed to donating blood. It becomes a
platform from which they become lifelong blood donors” (8).
Officials at the university were not persuaded. “What San José State has done is to take
an institutional position based on principles, based on values,” said Larry Carr, the
University’s associate vice president for public affairs (9).
The Blood Supply in the United States
According to American Red Cross, “every two seconds someone in the U.S. needs blood.
More than 38,000 blood donations are needed every day. One out of every 10 people
admitted in a hospital needs blood. As of 2001, the volume of blood transfused to patients
is increasing the rate of 6% per year, and the demand is growing faster than the supply. A
single donation can help save the lives of up to 3 people” (10). “Every day in our country,
blood is required in hospitals and emergency treatment facilities to save the lives of
accident victims, patients with cancer and other diseases, as well as those undergoing
routine surgeries. Our goal is to ensure that blood is available to patients whenever and
wherever it is needed because it is the blood on the shelves that saves lives,” said Karen
Shoos Lipton, AABB's chief executive officer (11).
Blood supplies in the U.S. vary depending on both region and time of year. For example,
because of the impacts on blood donation frequency of holiday travel schedules,
inclement weather and illness, blood is left in especially short supply during the winter
months, particularly in January. To highlight this seasonal variation, January 2008 had
been identified by the American Red Cross as National Blood Donor Month. Stricter
donor qualifications and a graying donor population combine with seasonal and regional
fluctuations to make low blood supplies a frequent concern in many cities, who often
find themselves holding less than a one-day supply (12).
Blood drives are a primary vehicle for increasing supplies of blood. Because convenience
is the deciding factor for many people in choosing whether or not to give blood, working
7 Notes from 11 March 2008 AABB FDA Liaison Meeting. (28 March 2008). Retrieved from
http://www.aabb.org/Content/Meetings_and_Events/Government_Advisory_Meetings/FDA_Liaison_Meetings/flm031108.
htm.
8 Tsao, Kimberly. (04 February 2008). “President Halts Blood Drives; Policy Questioned.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/02/04/News/President.Halts.Blood.Drives.Poli
cy.Questioned-3185777.shtml.
9 Bausinger, Chris. (12 February 2008). “Controversy No Longer Local.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/02/12/News/Controversy.No.Longer.Local3202981.shtml.
10 American Red Cross. “50 Quick Facts.” Retrieved from http://www.givelife2.org/sponsor/quickfacts.asp.
11 American Red Cross. “Significant Blood Shortages Have Strained the National Supply, Leaving Many Parts of the
Country with Less Than a One-day Supply.” Retrieved from
http://www.redcross.org/press/biomed/bm_pr/030114bloodshortage.html.
12 Ibid.
3
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
with sponsor organizations, such as companies, churches and universities, who can help
target donors where they live and work is a primary strategy blood banks use for
increasing donations. In fact, the American Red Cross reports that 80% of blood
donations they receive are made at blood drives rather than fixed donor centers (13).
Besides its size and stability, the other main concern surrounding the blood supply is its
safety. While the U.S. blood supply is among the safest in the world, the potential exists
for transfusion recipients to contract harmful or even fatal diseases should they receive
tainted blood. As a result, each unit of donated blood is tested for the presence of such
diseases as syphilis, hepatitis and Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus (HLTV), which can
cause various cancers. Of particular concern is transmission of HIV/AIDS, which has
been screened for in tests of donated blood since March 1985. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that virtually all patients infected with HIV by
transfusion received those transfusions prior to the start of testing. The current risk of
infection with HIV in the United States via transfusion is extremely low, even in places
where HIV prevalence rates are high (14). According to the FDA, the probability of being
infected by undetected HIV in a transfusion is less than 1 in two million (15). In
comparison, the National Weather Service estimates that the chances of being struck by
lightning in a given year are about 1 in 700,000 (16).
The FDA’s Policy on Blood Donations from the MSM Population
One reason given for the high degree of safety that characterizes the U.S. blood supply is
the stringency of rules governing who can donate. In particular, the FDA’s policy on
blood donations from men who have sex with other men (called the “MSM” population)
defers donations from any man who has had sexual contact with another male, even once,
since 1977, the year that marks the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. The
MSM status of potential donors is obtained via a questionnaire that is administered prior
to blood donation.
While several categories of individuals face blood donation deferrals, including people
who have gotten tattoos or piercings in the last six months or who have recently traveled
to a malarial country, the MSM deferral differs in that it is a lifetime ban. A similar
lifetime ban applies to anyone who has ever been paid for sex or used intravenous drugs.
An FDA fact sheet explaining the MSM blood ban gives several justifications (17):
13 American Red Cross. “Sponsoring a Blood Drive.” Retrieved from http://www.givelife2.org/sponsor/.
14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How Safe is the Blood Supply in the United Sates? Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa15.htm.
15 Associated Press. (24 May 2007). “Drug Agency Reaffirms Ban on Gay Men Giving Blood.” New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/washington/24blood.html.
16 Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved from
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm.
17 Food and Drug Administration. “FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men.” Retrieved
from http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/msmdonor.htm#6.
4
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
•
•
•
•
Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence that is 60
times higher than that of the general population.
Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
There are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or
platelets in the U.S. every year; therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can
be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor
population.
Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of
virus are present in the blood, especially during the so-called "window period"
between initial HIV infection and the point at which an HIV test can detect the
virus in an infected person. The FDA's MSM policy reduces the likelihood that an
infected gay man would unknowingly donate blood during this window period.
In short, the FDA’s position is that while tests for HIV applied to donated blood are
highly accurate, they are not foolproof, and the deferral process adds an additional level
of protection by disallowing donation from individuals who identify themselves as
members of groups known to have higher risks of carrying the disease. They conclude
that “several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to
people who receive blood transfusions if FDA's MSM policy were changed and that
preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.” A similar lifetime
deferral policy for donations from the MSM population exists in many other developed
nations, including Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Hong Kong,
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
While the MSM ban was first enacted in 1983 and has existed in its current form since
1992, the agency periodically has reviewed the policy in the intervening years. For
example, in September 2000, the FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) met
to consider a proposal to modify the lifetime ban to a deferral only for those men who
had had sex with another man within the last five years. FDA medical officer Andrew
Dayton, MD, estimated that a worst-case scenario would see 1 in 750,000 blood units
slipping through as a result of a move to a five-year deferral. He also testified that the
release of donated blood known to be tainted to hospitals because of outdated, nonautomated handling systems constituted a much more pressing danger that dwarfed risks
associated with allowing gay men to give blood. Representatives of AABB advocated for
going further, lowering the MSM deferral period to 12 months to bring it into line with
policies for other “high-risk sexual exposures.” However, the American Red Cross, the
nation’s largest blood supplier, did not support a change in the policy at that time, and the
BPAC voted 7-6 not to alter the existing policy, with five members of the committee
absent (18).
By 2006, the American Red Cross had changed its position, and in March of that year it
joined with the AABB and America’s Blood Centers to again propose a move to a one18 Roehr, Bob. “The Gift of Life: Gay Men and U.S. Blood Donation Policy.” Retrieved from
http://www.libertyeducationforum.org/downloads/1h_whtpa_pbl00.pdf.
5
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
year deferral. The groups argued that longer deferrals were unnecessary given the
sophistication of testing technology that can detect HIV antibodies in blood within 3
weeks of infection, making the lifetime ban “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”
Nevertheless, on May 23, 2007, the FDA reaffirmed its lifetime deferral policy, noting on
its web site that while current HIV tests were indeed highly accurate, they could not
detect the presence of HIV in donated blood 100% of the time (19). According to a
message on the FDA web site, the “FDA would change this policy only if supported by
scientific data showing that a change in policy would not present a significant and
preventable risk to blood recipients. Scientific evidence has not yet been provided to
FDA that shows that blood donated by MSM or a subgroup of these potential donors is as
safe as blood from currently accepted donors” (20).
The Debate over the FDA’s MSM Policy
The FDA’s stance that it had not been provided with convincing scientific evidence did
not mean that scientists had not evaluated the MSM deferral policy. For example, a 2003
study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto and published in the journal
Transfusion estimated that moving to a 12-month deferral policy would result in one
HIV-contaminated unit for every 136,000 additional donations, increasing overall HIV
risk by 8%. The study predicted the number of donations would increase by 1.3% (21). A
2005 study by a different research team, also published in Transfusion, found that
donations from male blood donors who had not reported sex with men in the last five
years were no riskier than donations from all men who reported not having sex with
another man since 1977, though donations from men who engaged in homosexual sex
within the last five years were riskier. The authors concluded that a five-year MSM
deferral was just as effective as a lifetime deferral (22).
Advocates have relied on these and other studies in making the case that the lifetime
deferral policy is outdated and potentially harmful, since excluding healthy members of
the MSM population prevents them from helping to meet the nation’s blood demands.
Other arguments against the ban are less tangible. For example, the FDA’s policy has
been criticized for stigmatizing gay men as tainted or unhealthy. According to Charlene
Galarneau, a health ethicist at Wellesley College: “[N]ot only does the deferral of MSM
donors unnecessarily restrict the donor pool; it stigmatizes MSM and excludes them from
participating in this ‘gift relationship.’ Blood is a gift of altruism: there is no right or civic
obligation to give blood. Nonetheless, blood donation is a symbolically rich and
materially important way of participating in and contributing to society” (23).
19 Associated Press. (24 May 2007). “Drug Agency Reaffirms Ban on Gay Men Giving Blood.” New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/washington/24blood.html.
20 Food and Drug Administration. “FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men.” Retrieved
from http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/msmdonor.htm#6.
21 Germain, M., Remis, R.S., & Delage, G. (2003). The risks and benefits of accepting men who have had sex with men
as blood donors. Transfusion, 43(1), 25-33.
22 Sanchez,A., Schreiber, G., Nass, C., Glynn, S., Kessler, D., Hirschler, N., Fridey, J., Bethel, J., Murphy, E., 7 Busch,
M. (2005). The impact of male-to-male sexual experience on risk profiles of blood donors. Transfusion, 45(3), 404-413.
23 Galarneau, Charlene A. (2005). “FDA Blood Donation Policy: Bad Policy Begets ‘Bad Blood.’” Paper presented a
American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition, 13 December 2005.
6
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
Reactions to the SJSU Blood Drive Ban Decision
SJSU’s suspension ignited a chain of reactions to FDA’s policy. Many of these reactions
were from the local community. In February, the Board of Supervisors for Santa Clara
County, where San José is located, formally opposed and condemned FDA’s lifetime ban
on blood donations from gay men, saying the policy was inconsistent with its stance of
“opposing discrimination in any form.” But the Board did not suspend blood drives
throughout the county because of concerns about inadequate blood volume and the
“detrimental effect on the county’s ability to provide medical care for county residents.”
The county would not “create any artificial barriers for potential donors,” said Supervisor
Liz Kniss, Chair of the Board’s Health and Hospital Committee (24).
In another example, the Council of Churches of Santa Clara County voted unanimously
on February 29, 2008, that “medical policy should be driven by science, not superstition.”
The Council noted that its stance was similar to that of the American Red Cross—that the
FDA policy is outdated—and applauded Don Kassing and San José State University for
their “bold stance on this issue” (25).
However, not everyone in Santa Clara County was supportive. Soon after President
Kassing’s decision, Stanford Blood Center officials said that while they agreed that a
lifetime ban on donations from men who have sex with men was overly restrictive,
Kassing’s decision was “a terribly misguided tactic that could have a devastating impact
on the blood supply, and therefore, patients in our community” (26).
Other blood center officials concurred. “Their cause is a just one, but the action is
inappropriate,” said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America’s Blood
Centers. Dr. Louis M. Katz, executive vice president of the Mississippi Valley Regional
Blood Center in Davenport, Iowa, and a member of the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory
Committee, went further. “For a university president, of all people, to allege
discrimination over a scientific disagreement and regulatory imperative is very
disappointing. I must have transfused hundreds of AIDS patients. The irony is that a
compromised blood supply caused by these kinds of boycotts has the potential to injure
those whom the president of San José State University is trying to protect” (27).
24 County of Santa Clara, CA. (26 February 2008). “County Opposes FDA Ban of Lifetime Donations of Blood from Gay
Men.” Retrieved from
http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/scc/fusionSp?path=%252Fv7%252FPublic%2520Affairs%252C%2520Office%2520of%2
520%2528DEP%2529&contentId=582154cefbe39110VgnVCM10000048dc4a92.
25 Laird, Cynthia. (20 March 2008). “South Bay Churches Support Blood Drive Ban.” Bay Area Reporter. Retrieved from
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2825; also Council of Churches of Santa Clara County. (29
February 2008). “FDA Blood Donor Policy Need Head and Heart: Advocating for a Just & Rational Blood Donor Policy.”
Retrieved from http://www.councilofchurchesscc.org/article.php?story=20080328154337492&query=FDA%2BBlood%2BDonor%2BPolicy%2BNeed%2BHead%2Band
%2BHeart%253A%2BAdvocating%2Bfor%2Ba%2BJust%2B%2526%2BRational%2BBlood%2BDonor%2BPolicy.
26 Hyndman, Michele. (01 February 2008). “Stanford Blood Center Statement Regarding San Jose State University's
Decision to Suspend Blood Drives.” Retrieved from http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2008/february/SBCstatement.html.
27 Allen, Arthur. (06 February 2008). “San Jose State Bans Red Cross over FDA Rule.” The Washington Independent.
Retrieved from http://washingtonindependent.com/view/san-jose-state-bans.
7
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
There was some evidence that the blood drive ban had an impact on donations.
According to the Stanford Blood Center, between January and March of 2007, the center
collected 11,302 units, while in the same period in 2008, it collected only 10,453 units, a
decrease of 7.5%. Representatives from the Center claimed that during this time period,
“we would have collected blood from over 300 donors on San José State's campus that
we are now missing out on” (28). There was also worry that the controversy following
the blood ban would discourage other potential donors from giving blood.
The SJSU blood ban resulted in a ripple effect through other universities. On February
24, 2008, the Blood Donor Discrimination Proposal was passed by a margin of 17 to 9 at
the Undergraduate Assembly of University of Pennsylvania to “urge the University to
examine whether the presence of on-campus blood collectors who are bound by an FDA
policy banning certain blood donors violates Penn's non-discrimination policy” (29). On
March 11, 2008, The San José/Evergreen Community College District became the second
educational entity to prohibit blood drives when its board of trustees voted unanimously
to enforce an immediate ban on both subsidiary campuses (30). The ban affected 25,000
students (31). Students at the University of California-Berkeley similarly voiced
complaints about the MSM deferral policy, though they took a different direction in
organizing their protest. To avoid taking blood out of the supply, students instead
organized a drive that encouraged gay men to recruit blood donors in their place (32). In
May, Sonoma State University’s Faculty Senate approved a resolution urging its
administration to ban blood banks from operating on campus, but President Rubin
Arminana refused, saying “there was no legal ruling that a federal policy banning blood
donations from homosexual men violated anti-discrimination policies” and that the ban
had not been “determined unlawful by any court in this country” (33)
Meanwhile, FDA officials met with Kassing and associate vice president Larry Carr in
March to discuss SJSU’s concerns about the MSM policy. In particular, Kassing and Carr
hoped to hear from the FDA that they were establishing a timeline for a review process.
After the meeting, Carr reported that the FDA had no such plans. Instead, Carr said the
message seemed to be that the agency was a mechanism of regulation, not research. The
FDA believed that current medical science justified the protocols and that it was not the
28 Taylor, Kate. (10 April 2008). “Suspension's Impact on Blood Center Unclear.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/04/10/News/Suspensions.Impact.On.Blood.Ce
nter.Unclear-3314742.shtml.
29 Pollock, Jody. (28 February 2008). “UA Takes on Blood Drive Issue.” The Daily Pennsylvanian. Retrieved from
http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2008/02/28/News/Ua.Takes.On.Blood.Drive.Iss
ue-3240062.shtml, 28 Feb. 2008. At the writing of this case, the UA is communicating with the President’s Office, the
Office of the Provost and other relevant administration to figure out what the best plan of action is.
30 Hornberg, John. (12 march 2008). “Two San Jose JCs Suspend Blood Drives.” Spartan Daily. Retrived from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/03/12/News/TwoSan.Jose.Jcs.Suspend.Blood.Drives-3264907.shtml.
31 Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee. (March 2008). “San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Suspends
Blood Drives.” The BAYMEC Informant. Retrieved from http://www.baymec.net/BMNL032608.html.
32 Krupnick, Matt. (08 April 2008). “Cal Students Sidestep FDA Blood-Donor Policy.” Oakland Tribune. Retrieved from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080408/ai_n25144379.
33 Norton, Laura. (29 May 2008). “SSU Won’t Ban Blood Drives.”Press Democrat. Retrieved from
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080529/NEWS/805290332.
8
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
organization’s responsibility to look for new science or technology, which they said they
left to a private market. The FDA would not change the policy until presented with
scientific evidence that doing so was warranted (34). Regardless, the university
administrators left the meeting with no reason to reinstate blood drives on campus. “The
FDA’s policy, whether backed by science or not, is in conflict with our nondiscrimination policy,” Carr reiterated (35).
Some student groups were disappointed that the University did not lift its ban. On March
17, students from fraternity Tau Delta Phi organized a blood drive off campus and not as
Tau Delta Phi but as individual citizens so they could avoid violating the University’s
policy. “They have good intentions,” Tau Delta Phi President Dominic Fass said in the
student-run Spartan Daily about the administration’s decision to suspend blood drives on
campus. “I just don't feel like they should be making people who have no say in this
unwanted participants of this protest, because in the end the people who are suffering are
those who need [blood] daily” (36). Asked about the Tau Delta Phi blood drive at a press
conference addressing the University’s continued blood drive suspension, President
Kassing responded that it was “a good thing” to donate blood off-campus (37).
On March 11, 2008, at a meeting of AABB’s FDA Liaison Committee (which included
representatives from AABB, the American Red Cross, American’s Blood Centers,
Advanced Medical Technology Association, the College of American Pathologists and
the U.S. Department of Defense), AABB again raised the issue of the FDA’s MSM blood
donation policy in light of SJSU’s blood drive suspension. The FDA responded by
repeating its concern about “the possibility of an erroneous release of a product from an
infected donor” in spite of the more sophisticated donor questioning and screening tests
(38).
Members of Congress also moved to address the FDA policy. On April 2, U.S.
Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) requested that the fiscal year 2009 agriculture spending
34 Kimbrel, Jesse. (11 March 2008). “S.J. Colleges May Ban Blood Drives, SJSU Update: Kassing Met with FDA to Talk
Policy.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/03/11/News/S.jColleges.May.Ban.Blood.Drives-3262362.shtml.
35 Rizzo, Michael. (10 March 2008). “Kassing ‘Disappointed’ after Meeting with FDA.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://blogs.thespartandaily.com/feed/; also Tsao, Kimberly. (17 March 2008). “Off-campus Blood Drives Restricted.”
Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/03/17/News/OffCampus.Blood.Drives.Restrict
ed-3271131.shtml.
36 Tsao, Kimberly. (17 March 2008). “Off-campus Blood Drives Restricted.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/03/17/News/OffCampus.Blood.Drives.Restrict
ed-3271131.shtml; also Wright, Tommy. (18 March 2008). “Students Host Donor Drive A Block Away.” Spartan Daily.
Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/03/18/News/Students.Host.Donor.Drive.A.Blo
ck.Away-3272837.shtml.
37 Staff. (18 March 2008). “Blood Big Topic at SJSU Presidents’ News Conference.” Spartan Daily. Retrieved from
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/03/18/News/Blood.Big.Topic.At.Sjsu.President
s.News.Conference-3272844.shtml.
38 Notes from 11 March 2008 AABB FDA Liaison Meeting. (28 March 2008). Retrieved from
http://www.aabb.org/Content/Meetings_and_Events/Government_Advisory_Meetings/FDA_Liaison_Meetings/flm031108.
htm.
9
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
bill include language to require FDA to re-evaluate its “discriminatory” policy regarding
MSM blood donation lifetime deferral (39). At a House Appropriations Committee
hearing, Jesse Goodman, director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, said the policy is not discriminatory but buttressed by science showing that
allowing MSM to donate blood would lead to a “real risk” of increased HIV and hepatitis
cases and by the fact that several other groups of people are banned from giving blood.
Nonetheless, U.S. Representatives Mike Honda (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Farr
issued a letter to the FDA asking the agency to detail its efforts to update its 16-year-old
and out-of-pace ban on blood donations from gay men (40). “I am confident FDA
officials have the public’s well-being first and foremost in their mind, but they should
also realize their decisions have moral implications as well. I strongly encourage the FDA
to re-evaluate the technologies available to them so we can expand the pool of eligible
blood donors, increase our available blood supply, and continue to save people’s lives in
a morally and scientifically responsible manner,” said Mr. Farr (41).
Don Kassing retired from his role as University President on July 1, 2008, after four
years of service. As of March, 2009, the FDA has no immediate plans to reevaluate the
MSM blood deferral policy. San José State University’s ban on campus blood drives
remains in effect.
39 Lopes Harris, Pat. (15 April 2008). “Blood Drive Suspension Update: U.S. Reps. Sam Farr, Mike Honda and Zoe
Lofgren Support SJSU.” San Jose State University News Release. Retrieved from
http://www.sjsu.edu/news/releases/releases_detail.jsp?id=2815.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
10
Science, Discrimination, and the Blood Supply
Attachment 1 - San José State University’s Non-Discrimination Policy
San José State University does not discriminate on the basis of accent, age, ancestry,
citizenship status, color, creed, disability, ethnicity, gender, marital status, medical
condition, national origin, race, religion or lack thereof, sex, sexual orientation,
transgender, or veteran's status. This policy applies to all SJSU student, faculty and staff
programs and activities.
Source: http://info.sjsu.edu
11