Why Stop at the Red Cross? Why Kicking the Red Cross Off Campus Isn’t Enough

Published October 30, 2007
One Comment (at bottom of article)

By Max C. Bookman

So the SGA shot down the Red Cross bill (.doc file). It would have kicked the group off campus for adhering to the national Red Cross’ policy to not accept blood donations from men who have had sex with other men.

But I think the bill didn’t go far enough. I’m angry at the Red Cross’ policy. I’m pissed off at how intolerant they are. I think I hate them. Who cares that this is an organization that selflessly lends its hand to those in need, providing assistance to the homeless, sheltering flood victims, giving away blood, standing on the front lines of the California wildfire, and doing whatever it can for regular people in unfortunate situations.

I hate the Red Cross so much, my bill won’t just kick them off campus, but remove everything that has to do with them too!

First to go is the Catholic Center. Whenever I walk by that cute little building, all I can see is a big iron cross, and my mind immediately associates that image with the Red Cross. Call it ridiculous, but if you can support ResLife’s ban of penis drawings on whiteboards because phallic depictions may offend a sensitive person, the jump from cross to Red Cross isn’t that big of a stretch. Plus, the Catholic Church has a well-documented history of homosexual intolerance. They must go.

Speaking of whiteboards, I can’t walk down a dorm hallway without seeing some sort of “Go Red Sox” drawing. The names “ Red Sox” and “Red Cross” share a particularly obvious similarity that I simply can’t handle. How am I supposed to forget how bad I hate the Red Cross if I am constantly being reminded of the color red? No more Red Sox anything on campus.

I know that some of those intolerant senators who voted the bill down cited that the Red Cross’ hands were tied because they were simply complying with regulations set by the Food and Drug Administration that barred them from accepting blood from men who have engaged in sex with other men in the past quarter-century. An easy cop-out if you ask me.

But now every time I go to Simpson to eat some food, I think of the FDA, which in turn makes me think of the Red Cross, which I viciously loathe. So we have to kick Sodexho off campus too. Anyone involved with food, and especially the FDA has got to be in on this anti-gay conspiracy. I know that having no more food on campus seems slightly brash, but it is a necessary sacrifice to make in order to ensure that nobody ever gets offended. Ever.

Indeed, there are plenty of other groups on campus that are involved with the FDA because they dispense drugs to students. Wellness Center? Out. Athletic Medicine? Gone. These guys who comply with the FDA are rubberstamping intolerance. And nobody is going to be intolerant at the University of Vermont. Not on my watch.

But this doesn’t go far enough.

If anything around campus so much as reminds a student of the Red Cross, or anything associated with it, we have to get rid of it. The UVM Cross Country team has the word cross in the name! That sounds like a closet endorsement of the Red Cross to me. Kick them out. Students for a Sensible Drug Policy could remind someone of the “D” in FDA. Come to think of it, SGA sounds a lot like FDA.

As the Red Cross bill showcased, we must meet intolerance with more intolerance. Forget that the actual people who are involved with the Red Cross in Burlington are selfless Vermonters who provide an invaluable service to the local community. Never mind that this is a local chapter of an international organization and therefore has no power to change its regulations. Look past that the Red Cross is simply complying with the suggestions of the Food and Drug Administration.

Why engage in constructive dialogue when you can just ban the bastards from campus? It may not change anything, but it will send a clear message – UVM will not tolerate positive conversation. If we disagree with the policies of an organization on campus, we are going to let our hate get the best of us and eliminate them in a negative spectacle for the whole Burlington community to see.

What was also great about the Red Cross bill is that it framed the debate in such a way, that the senators who voted for it appeared to be champions of the LGBTQA community, while those fools who voted against it could be marked as homo-bashing, gay-hating, heterosexist pigs.

So what about the terrible words that were sprayed outside L/L last week, shallowly demonizing the man who broke the tied vote to turn the bill down? That’s not a hate crime – it’s just good rhetoric. Remember, intolerance with intolerance.

Of course, whoever wrote that bill could have set up a meeting with a representative from the national Red Cross organization. He could have directly petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to change its policy. He could have brought speakers to the school who would decry this injustice. Maybe he did try something along those lines.

But whoever wrote that bill must have understood that flimsy dialogue causes less of a stir than firm action. Why be constructive when you can tear down the tenets of tolerance, positive change, and love that the LGBTQA stands for? Seeing situations in black and white makes it far easier to seem morally justified than actually taking into account the complexity of the players involved. President Bush taught us that lesson. You’re either with us, or you’re with the enemy.

If we pass my bill to ban the Red Cross, Catholic Center, Sodexho, Red Sox, Wellness Center, Athletic Medicine, Cross Country, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, and SGA, the University of Vermont will be a far more tolerant place. Just like massive book burnings, when something we hate is out of sight, it’s out of mind. Then, and only then, will I be able to rest easy, knowing that we did the right thing.

---

Print This Article


« WT’s Bonkers Blog Posting of the Week | Serving You The News In Brief »

---

Comments