By Sara Russo

In the aftermath of September 11th, the president of a gay student group at Harvard University urged members of his organization to donate blood in defiance of Red Cross criteria which prevent homosexual men from giving blood because they are more likely than the general populace to be infected with diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis.

"On the Red Cross' form, you will be asked: 'Are you a man who has had sexual contact with another man since 1973?'" Clifford Davidson, a senior at Harvard and president of BOND (Beyond Our Normal Differences) wrote in an e-mail to his membership. "This applies to many of you. You should lie," he instructed.

Davidson told Harvard's student paper, The Crimson, that he realized some would object to his mandate to deceive the Red Cross, but he believed that the students in his organization would understand that he wanted only those who had been tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases to lie about their homosexual behavior. "Since I am sure of my HIV status, I thought that I should be able to give along with others in my position," Davidson said.

Other members of BOND were surprised that Davidson would publicly state his desire to lie to the Red Cross, but nevertheless agreed that gay students should give blood. "The [Red Cross] rule is based on homophobic stereotypes," claimed Fred Smith, a sophomore member of BOND. "In this case I don't think it is unreasonable to ignore it."

"It's not the fact that we care that they're gay," explained an operator at the Red Cross' blood donation hotline. "It's the fact that we care that they're having sex with other men."

While lying on the Red Cross' form is not criminal, she explained, it is discouraged because the donor deferral guidelines are put in place to ensure the health of the blood supply. "It's because of high risk behavior," she clarified, noting that the Red Cross similarly refuses blood from those with a history of intervenous drug use "because IV drug users are at high risk for diseases."

Furthermore, while the gay students in BOND might have recently tested negative for HIV, it can take up to six months after infection for the HIV virus to be detectable in a blood test, meaning that if the students had engaged in homosexual sex or other risky behavior within the six month period prior to the HIV test, the results might not prove conclusive.

Donated blood is currently subjected to a rigorous screening process for HIV, hepatitis, and syphilis among other diseases, but because of the six month delay in HIV antibody detection, it is still possible for an HIV positive blood sample to make its way into our blood banks.

The Red Cross website notes, "Most HIV infected individuals are not aware of their condition as they may look and feel completely well. Laboratory tests used by the Blood Bank would be unable to detect the HIV infection during the early stage of the infection, also known as a 'window period' (the time interval between infection with HIV and its detection by currently available tests). However, these individuals may still pass the virus onto recipients of blood."

Despite these clear warnings about the potentially fatal consequences of a person at risk for HIV donating blood, Davidson still believes his original e-mail mandate was warranted. And it appears that some of the students in BOND may be taking his advice.

"I've lied about my sexuality in the past to donate when appropriate, and will do so in the future," one anonymous member told the Harvard Crimson. "But I'm also a very responsible, HIV [negative], STD free, monogamous fag."