(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Mixed Messages and Mixed Diversity on AIDS Commission
01/23/2003

Glenn Reynolds links to an article about Jerry Thacker, a Bush appointee to the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS in the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Reynolds opines:

I don't know this guy, and I suppose it's conceivable that this is a bit of outrageous character assassination -- but there's a notable absence of Administration voices saying that's the case. Instead, the spin seems to be that Thacker is HIV-positive and that his appointment furthers diversity on the Commission. Well, it certainly does that. But I thought this Administration was against diversity for diversity's sake, and it's not clear to me just what else Thacker brings to the table.

Surely, Glenn sees the logic behind being against racial (skin color) diversity for its own sake while being for ideological diversity. Here's the relevant passage from the article:

Administration health officials speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed Thacker's appointment. They said he was part of a diverse group that includes a member of the board of directors of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian advocacy group; an AIDS adviser to the World Bank; and a state public health officer.

Thacker, this official said, "has a very powerful and tragic personal story and an ability to reach out to an audience we couldn't reach in the process."

I'm not quite sure why having somebody with Thacker's opinion and perspective as one member of a 35-member commission is objectionable, unless it's to censor a point of view, or at least limit the fervor and conviction with which it is put forward. One indication that this is the case is a screamingly obvious contradiction inherent in the opposition to him.

"We need to have a scientific-based approach to the problems of HIV-AIDS and not this radical agenda he's pushing," [Carl Schmid, a Republican gay activist,] said. Aside from the harshly anti-gay tone of Thacker's rhetoric, Schmid said, his major objection to Thacker is his aggressive lobbying for abstinence-until-marriage education.

"Abstinence-until-marriage does not help anyone in the gay community, because we can't get married," he said. "If you are a gay youth, who is addressing your concerns?"

For one, we already know that gay activists are also present on the panel. Additionally, the leading complaint against Thacker is that his Web site referred to AIDS as a "gay plague." That doesn't sound but so far from Schmid's point of view. There's some disingenuousness in this specific complaint. Here's the relevant paragraph from the Google cache of the page with the offending "characterization":

Before 1986, Jerry Thacker was probably a lot like you. He had a beautiful family, a good church, and a rewarding ministry. He knew vaguely about the "gay plague " known as AIDS, but it seemed a distant threat. AIDS was something that bad people had to worry about. Not Christians. Not the church.

The use of "gay plague" is clearly meant to suggest that the disease's limited reach was an impression that Thacker later, through personal tragedy, learned to be false. This is not to suggest that I find Thacker's opinions wholly agreeable — or that they are wholly agreeable. For an idea of the totality of his opinion, check out the Google cache of a page using the "deathstyle" coinage for which he is also under fire. And I'm not suggesting that the falsely insinuated usage of "gay plague" would have been out of step with Thacker's general opinion:

HIV can only be transmitted by the exchange of body fluids and is still primarily contracted by homosexual men, who have a large number of sexual partners over their lifetime. This is not a beneficial lifestyle. Alcohol and drug abuse are high, 35-40% experience deep depression, 40% have contemplated suicide. Eighty-four percent of AIDS cases are transmitted by homosexuals. The life span of a homosexual man is 42 years, half of that of other men.

Look, despite my belief that there should be people on such advisory committees who are willing to be clear and persistent in raising abstinence as a solution to the AIDS epidemic, I'm ambivalent about Mr. Thacker's appointment. If the folks who run the panel feel that he might sidetrack discussion too dramatically away from AIDS, then he should not be a member. What really gets me, though, is this borderline McCarthyism whereby certain solutions or speakers of solutions just differ too drastically from the popular line to be heard.

I strongly disagree with efforts to hide "offending" phrases by removing them from Web sites. But I even more strongly disagree with a culture in which hiding an honestly held — and hardly demented — opinion is deemed necessary. AIDS is just too big of a problem around the world for us not to value diversity in ways of approaching it.

ADDENDUM:
Apparently, Thacker has declined to participate. Not knowing how one is asked to sit on such commissions nor what motivated Thacker to withdraw, I can only speak vaguely. Perhaps he or others decided that the heat would not be worth it; perhaps he really would have diverted the commission's attention disruptively away from AIDS and toward "converting" homosexuals, which I'd already suggested was grounds for him not to serve.

But frankly, I'm a bit uneasy at the coverage and statements of the opposing side. It may be a little thing, but I just cannot get over the fact that, even with an apparently broad field of statements that "right-thinking citizens" (as ryuge says in the comments) would find wrong, the phrase hammered in the press was "gay plague," which shouldn't have been offensive in context and, moreover, seemed to be a characterization in line with the reasoning that supported opposition to Thacker's abstinence advocacy.

I guess the only point in this whole debate about which I have a strong opinion is that the battle against HIV and AIDS is much too tangled up in politics, specifically sexual politics.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 12:25 PM EST

6 comments

The idea that homosexuality is some sort of unnatural "deathstyle" that can be "cured" is no less demented than the idea that segregation is a legitimate solution to our civil rights problems, no matter how honestly held this belief is. Are race relations in this country not an important issue? By your logic, appointing a segregationist (or, say, an anti-miscegenationist) to a federal civil rights panel would be a refreshing way to value diversity in ways of approaching civil rights! Segregationism and anti-misceginationism are rightfully seen as immoral. It is equally immoral to teach young people who are just coming to terms with their homosexuality that they are afflicted with some sort of curable evil. Come on, Justin! I respect your opinions, but Glenn had it right. Thacker's views are justifiably condemned by the majority of right-thinking citizens.

ryuge @ 01/23/2003 02:42 PM EST

ryuge,

Part of your position, I think, speaks to my ambivalence. I strongly support abstinence as the centerpiece of any strategy for addressing AIDS; however, I don't believe that those who consider homosexuality to be a curable disorder ought to actively seek to "convert" gays. Be honest about and willing to express their opinions, yes; offer support or help to those who go to them for advice, yes. I don't know how active Thacker was beyond stating his opinion to others who likely shared it.

Frankly, I reject the direct comparison of sexuality to race in this context. The evil of racism derives from its being a prejudicial judgement based on something that is immaterial. In discussions involving sexual behavior, differences defined by that behavior are obviously relevant. For this reason, even if I accepted the equivalence of race and sexuality, I would have to insist that your comparison is false. HIV isn't a civil rights issue in the sense of involving abuse or denial of rights based on bigotry. Your hypothetical segregationist would be a racist on a panel to end racism. Thacker wasn't pro-AIDS. He also appears to have stressed compassion for those whose behavior he opposed.

The bottom line is that eliminating the scourge of AIDS is not possible without a dramatic change in behavior, no matter the sexuality or risky activity. Thacker went too far with his concept of what that change should be, but he might have been a useful ballast if he were able to maintain an understanding of the group's purpose.

Justin Katz @ 01/23/2003 04:04 PM EST

I notice that no one is alleging that Thacker's statistics are wrong- and the 84% would seem to support the "plague" characterization.

I can understand the negative reaction by many to the comments on "curing" homosexuality. Obviously, we all have certain "hardwired" predilections, and there is a small minority of around 5% or so that is exclusively attracted sexually to persons of the same gender.

But why is it unthinkable, given the behavioral risks, for people to consider or even discuss the possibility of life-styles that minimize risks of horrible health consequences? If I am one who has a natural compulsion for using in potentially negative ways alcohol, pedophilia, videogames, food, etc., things which, whether good or bad in and of themselves, can lead to bad outcomes if handled suboptimally, I am wise to look at managing my urges in a manner that minimizes possible negative consequences of my behaviors. Such compensation mechanisms could include a wide variety of life adjustments, from lots of condoms to a time-lock on the refrigerator.

It is clear that there is a group of persons whose sexuality is flexible- they can be attracted to either males or females. If the behaviors associated with expressing these sexual urges with males can lead to horrific outcomes, including untimely death, why could one not choose to undergo some type of behavior modification to channel the expression of that flexible sexuality toward a less dangerous practice?

The alcohol-vulnerable person never loses those impulses, nor does the homoerotically-directed portion of bisexuality, but training one's self to choose less risky behaviors from among the constellation of choices doesn't strike me as something to be derided, unless one has another political agenda.

I suggest that the term "cured" be eschewed in favor of a less incendiary word, but the concept not be trashed for those who choose such a path, any more than we would discourage a smoker from undergoing behavior modification. You are either capable of performing sexually with either gender or you aren't, and all the political bombast in the world doesn't change that one whit.

doyenopine @ 01/23/2003 05:52 PM EST

> "the battle against HIV and AIDS is much too tangled up in politics, specifically sexual politics."

I think that says it best. It seems that doyenopine and I are pretty much on the same wavelength on this issue. Objectively speaking, AIDS *could* be referred to as a "plague". Although not necessarily always to be identified with homosexuality, i.e. in Africa, anyone who attempts to characterize its transmittal in America otherwise is quite simply in denial.

I also agree that "cured" is an unfortunate choice of words as applied to those who have been delivered from homosexual urges. I have personally met people who have experienced this deliverance, and I can assure you that it is real and total. These were not people who had homosexual "tendencies", they were totally repulsed sexually by the opposite sex. But this is a tangential point at best in the discussion of AIDS and how best to deal with it in this country.

There is only one real solution, and it is proving its merit in the real world in Uganda. The answer is, first and foremost, total abstinence before marriage, and monogamy thereafter. Condom usage also has a secondary part to play, but only when used absolutely 100% of the time, and that is just not realistic to expect (or, put another way, is not any *more* realistic than expecting chastity outside of marriage).

There is some possibility that Mr. Thacker could have added some beneficial balance to the Advisory Commission, but I fear that his views would have been discounted if not totally censored by gay "advocates" who are more interested in preserving the illusion of homosexuality as a natural, desirable lifestyle than actually mitigating the spread of the HIV or AIDS. And that's very discouraging, not to say depressing, to those of us who would support real solutions to a very real, and growing, problem.

Wylie @ 01/24/2003 11:27 AM EST

Justin, I too have been surfing blogdom, and you are indeed a breath of fresh air. And absolutely right on on Sullivan and this Thackeray issue. Now, if you can get the comments to fit in my popup box, I'll try to visit more often.

Lloyd @ 01/24/2003 01:25 PM EST

Lloyd,

That's kind of you to say. To encourage your continued support (and because, on Tuesday, I noticed that the comment boxes work poorly on some of the computers in my classroom, as well), I've remedied the problem.

Justin Katz @ 01/24/2003 01:49 PM EST