The
Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2008
k 7
I
TT
ents respond to
of letters from
'.UMF
revious issue
]■
;ar Editor.
Unprinted letters to the Editor
r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1
■
1
■
■
I
r I think there is a situation at hand that is totally unacceptable.
earning the letter to the editor in last week’s paper, where
_____re responding to the gay student who runs the blood drive
t can’tfcimself give blood, there is no excuse to only publish such
ar hateful responses and no others.
told that the positive letters greatly outnumbered the
nes and yet die larger stack was “misplaced.” I find this
/ unlikely and entirely either irresponsible or vile should it be
ennonal.
I don’t feel like I should have to pull my punches; you allowed
^■Hput horribly close-minded and ignorant letters to be pub-
ted. If people are allowed to express those kind of views, views
t scream out “We are ignorant and proud of it!” then we cer-
lly deserv e that.
A place of learning should also, at best, be a place of tolerance,
is campus is a place where people come together from all over
1 from all walks of life to learn. Is the lesson we want remem-
ed thehmost to be intolerance? I hope not; that is a lesson taught
too much anymore.
There were a number of people hurt and angered by the incred-
y Mjnsitive and ignorant letters that were published. That is
irelyBincalled for. I believe that the person in charge of that
jnoa&ct should have to apologize publicly and personally for
:ir actions regarding this already sensitive situation.
I hope that the paper can keep up its usual level of balance and
M^Sient in the future. I was highly disappointed in the lack of
tfessiohalisin shown last week. I hope that doesn’t occur again;
loesn’j reflect well on The Print as a whole for that kind of a
ng to be published.
On one last aspect, not only is it the fault of the person who
Wished the article, but the editor is also at fault for not catch-
; the error and correcting it appropriately. I would be more
«■ding if it was to only go through one person, but for two
jple to. knowingly put such hurtful material in is most definitely
^Mle.
Editor ’s Note: The letters beloyv are six out of the 39 let-
ters that were originally submitted after the article ‘‘Sexual
orientation prevents male student from giving blood” was
published. Because a disproportionate representation of the
general sentiment was presented, The Print is providing a
sample of the original, unprinted supportive responses.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor:
To not be able to give
blood because you are gay is
unfair. To hold such a judg
ment on gay men is like still
holding judgment on African
Americans. Everyone should
be treated equally no matter
their sexual orientation.
I feel like the bias this
country has on gays and les
bians is almost like black and
white segregation. It’s almost
cruel in a way.
Straight people who find
gays
promiscuous,
even
though gays and straights
are just the same as straight
people, get to decide whether
they can do certain things,
like give blood and get mar
ried.
Just because you like some
one of the same sex doesn’t
mean that you are a bad person
or you should be treated dif
ferently. People cannot help
who they like or how they
feel about someone! No one
should ever be told they can’t
give blood because of some
thing that they can’t help.
Upon reading your article, I
couldn’t help but feel disgusted
- not because I have a prejudice
about homosexuals but because
people are so native and stereo
typical.
I personally don’t agree with
homosexuality, but I’m not going
to try to stop someone else from
making his or her own choice.
The idea that all gay men have
AIDS or some other STD is ridic
ulous. I know two people person
ally who are infected with HIV,
and neither one of them is gay.
If the American Red Cross
wants blood to save lives, it
shouldn’t matter what the donor’s
sexual" orientation is as long as the
blood can be used to save lives.
Like mentioned in the article,
“they check every unit of blood.”
I think it’s great Mitch Knudsen
continues to help plan and be
a part of the blood drive even
though he is unable to donate.
- Heather Asquith
ir Editor,
Dear Editor:
i’ve read the article on Mitch Knudsen and the letters
ated last week, and I whole heartedly disagree with
majority of responses. The ignorance and malice
wn in the letters were equal to those found on any
srnet forum, not what I would expect to read in a col-
e paper.
IIV tnay have been a bigger problem for gay males
he past, but now it is common for heterosexual men
women as well. Everyone who is sexually active is at
i ThejAmerican Red Cross now tests all the blood it
eives for HIV six times and refuses the blood if even
test js positive.
I seems to me that this is more about a silly fear of
iosex|iality being contagious than actually contract-
HIV.lThat said, only two out of the 11 letters were
n remotely supportive of the gay community. I’m
at all convinced that those could be the only letters
rived, noting how ridiculous the FDA regulation is. It
med completely one-sided and biased, and it makes
wonder what the staff of this publication is teaching
lent writers when only one side is presented and the
3
Clackamas Print
In response to the article
written, “Sexual orientation pre
vents male student from giving
blood,” it’s such a wonderful
thing that the male written about
is able to coordinate and orga
nize a blood drive. Yet, it does
not seem right that he himself is
unable to donate blood due to his
sexuality.
He has been tested, claims
he only has one partner, and
there is blood testing now that
picks up such things they would
be looking for in blood. It is
sad and almost unforgiving how
someone puts so much time into
organizing a blood drive but is
unable to give blood because of
MSM.
- Samantha Posvar
— Heather Williams
Dear Editor:
It is my Opinion that, gay
men who have had sex should
be able to give blood. Their
blood could help save lives.
Restricting their ability to
donate only hurts people
- both those who wish to
donate and those who need to
donate.
With modem technology,
not letting these men donate
is bordering on extreme igno
rance.
With the advances in tech
nology in the last 30 years,
these men should be able to
donate blood. Every drop of
blood is already tested. These
men could also get tested
before the drive and bring
proof that they are HIV-free.
Reform needs to happen in
the Red Cross’ blood donation
restrictions.
- Tyler Dearborn
i
1
■
■
■
Dear Editor,
When I read this article, it
made me feel angry due to the
fact that the American Red Cross
is supposed to help people by
receiving as many donations as
possible. Though some have the
disease, the assumption that “all”
gays have HIV is ridiculous.
If gays were allowed to
donate, they could save so many
more lives. Obviously, the more
people who can be potential
donors and can actually donate
create a higher chance of saving
lives.
I believe gay men should be
allowed and be more accept
ed. It’s pure reality now. They
shouldn’t be mistreated or disre
spected by who they are.
Stereotypes are stereotypes,
and I’m disappointed that the
American Red Cross doesn’t see
anything but the “gay man who
has HIV.” What does that say
about the American Red Cross,
in a sense that they want to
save as many lives as possi
ble? They’re contradicting their
beliefs because they refuse gay
men’s donations.
— Brittany Kolb
Dear Editor,
After reading the headline
“Sexual orientation prevents male
students from giving blood,” I
was angry.
How can this affect the blood
so much? I do not like how the
Red Cross only discriminates
against homosexual and not les
bians. Every person should be
allowed to give blood no mat
ter who they would sleep with.
Everyone has the same chance
as everyone else to get a STD
or HTV, no matter his or her sex
partner.
It makes me sick to think that
the person who set up such a great
cause cannot even give blood
himself. His blood could save a
life just as well as my blood or
your blood - and that’s the over
all reason for a blood drive.
- Magen Pettitt
iiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin
ditor in Chief responds in wake of errors in Opinion section
Megan Koler
Editor in Chief
Last week in the Opinion section, The Print pub-
led letters in response to the article entitled “Sexual
Itation prevents male student from giving blood.”
io an error in the organization of the 39 letters
red, the vast majority of those printed were of an
lomosexual nature or in support of the Federal
Administration’s ban on gay men giving blood,
was an absolutely unintended misrepresentation
; proportion of supportive letters to ones oppos-
the American Red cross. Normally, The Print
ves to show an even distribution of all submitted
sentiments. In this case, nearly 75 percent of the let
ters received were from students who were as out
raged by the FDA ban as Mitch Knudsen and Carol
Burnell. An example of the supportive letters is pro
vided in this issue of the newspaper.
To anyone who has been hurt by the error: On
behalf of the rest of The Print staff, I deeply apolo
gize. However, it is our obligation to publish as many
responses to our articles as possible. The editorial
staff will never turn away a letter simply because we
disagree with the views being expressed by the writer.
It is our opinion that every individual has a right to
be heard, even those who express beliefs that some
people may consider “close-minded” or “ignorant.”
In response to the claims that The Print was pur
posely showcasing only the negative letters as an
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim^
elaborate means to push some kind of anti-homosex
ual agenda, I can only say that those accusations are
ridiculously absurd and offensive. I personally went to
a lot of trouble to research and write my article about
the fact that Knudsen was unable to contribute to the
blood drive because the basic rights of all students,
staff and faculty are of great concern to this newspa
per and to me. Unfortunately, because we are only a
weekly publication, there hasn’t been an opportunity
to explain this misunderstanding until today.
I still thank the students who sent in letters, and
I encourage everyone to continue to write in should
they feel so inclined. Even though The Print's inten
tions were misunderstood, seeing so many students
come to the defense of members of their community
is encouraging. Please never stop.
|