San Jose State University Campus Blood Drive Ban - Research Paper Example

San Jose Campus Blood Drive Ban: Policy Analysis al Affiliation San Jose Campus Blood Drive Ban: Policy Analysis Introduction San Jose State University Campus Blood Drive Ban was effected on January 29, 2008 by the president of the University, Don W. Kassing. All blood drives taking place at the campus and others that are held in other places by official student organizations and employees representing the university were all banned. The ban followed a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifetime blood donor deferral policy. This blood drive ban at San Jose State University had certain far-reaching effects that include positive and negative impacts. This paper is an analysis of San Jose State University’s blood drive ban. History Following the implementation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifetime blood donor deferral policy (1983) that required all homosexual men who had engaged in sex with a male partner since 1977 not to donate blood, San Jose State University’s president decided to suspend all blood drives that were ongoing at the campus and also those held outside the campus by the official student organizations and those held by employees representing the organization. the blood drive ban came as a result of investigations that had been conducted at the campus following issues of the fairness of the university policy introduced by one of the university’s employees to the campus Office for Equal Rights. The president’s reasoning was that aligning the university’s blood drive policy with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifetime blood donor deferral policy violated the non-discriminatory policy enacted by the university because it denied homosexuals a chance to donate blood like other students. San Jose State University is a public institution in the policy making process. As such, it plays a key role in society (Verschuere, 2009). The blood drive ban was followed by nationwide reactions immediately. Major media outlets all over the country ran it in their news after picking the story from Associated Press. The blood drive policy received support and criticism from various quarters in the country. Many students and university employees positively commended on the university’s move. A section from the outside community also expressed its satisfaction with the policy stating that it would serve as the beginning point to ensure that discrimination of homosexuals is discouraged in matters such as this. The university and its president also received criticisms following the implementation of the blood drive ban policy. Some students, blood-collecting organizations and a section of the outside community saw this policy as a way of preventing students and the university employees from donating blood or initiating the process for others to donate blood, yet it was important in saving people’s lives. Analysis This paper uses the exploratory method of analysis by exploring the events that led to the formation of the policy, the implementation of the policy, its meaning, its effectiveness and effects to San Jose State University’s community and the American Society. The method of analysis shows that the policy was effective in its purpose despite the fact that it received criticisms from a variety of sources. The analysis is undertaken below. Public Policy Lascoumes & Le Gales (2007) define public policy as “a sociopolitical space constructed as much through techniques and instruments as through aims or content (Lascoumes & Le Gales, 2007). The techniques and instruments refer to technical and social devices that organize specific social aspects between entities and the people that they are addressed to with respect to the meanings and representations it has. Public policy, therefore, has certain effects to the groups for which it is intended and its effectiveness can be judged by looking at how it fulfills its purposes on the target groups (Aminu, Tella, & Mbaya, 2012). The blood drive ban policy is a public policy in the sense that it affects many people. Osman (2002) considers public policy making as “Public policy making is not merely a technical function of government; rather it is a complex interactive process influenced by the diverse nature of socio-political and other environmental forces” (Osman, 2002). Although public policy making could be a technical function of the government is also features the influences of several factors that include the people and the environment where they live in. This means that public policy making must have purposes, an intended target and also an intended outcome. An effective public policy must occupy a specific environment and serve to fulfill certain needs within that environment (Nilsson & Moodysson, 2014). Policies must address the needs of the target group. It should link the target group to the issue of concern (Mead, 2013). The blood drive ban policy reflects the above analysis of the public policy making process. The intended target of the blood drive ban policy includes students and employees of San Jose State University. It serves the purpose of ensuring that no person affiliated to San Jose State University, directly or indirectly, is discriminated upon just because it should have a policy that reflects the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifetime blood donor deferral policy (1983). The environment that the policy occupies is San Jose State University environment. If judged from the perspective of the public policy making process explained above then, it is an effective public policy. The blood drive ban policy is a public policy because it affects different people in society. First, it affects all students at the university because it shields all students from discrimination. While the policy could be considered to focus mainly on homosexual students, it affects all students in the sense that it shows the intention of making all persons understand that the university does not condone discriminatory policies. This is why the ban affects all students and employees irrespective of their sexual orientation. The policy also affects the community at large such as the blood-collecting organizations because it forces them to support policies that promote equality and non-discrimination in their activities of collecting blood. It also affects people in society because it shows them that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifetime blood donor deferral policy (1983) promotes discrimination on issues that are considered personal. For example, people donate blood voluntarily. Therefore, making this issue discriminatory when it is done out of goodwill is not acceptable. Policy Effectiveness To understand the effectiveness of the policy, it is essential to understand the issues that called for the development and implementation of the policy. As noted above, the blood drive ban policy was a response to complaints made concerning the fairness of the blood drive policy that was in use at the university. The policy was also a response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifetime blood donor deferral policy (1983) that did not allow homosexual men who were sexually active with male partners to donate blood. The policy was effective in a variety of ways. First, the policy had a purpose of ensuring that blood drives at the university would not promote discrimination of any student based on sexual orientation and also to promote fairness within the campus. By allowing blood drives to go on at the campus or outside the campus but through persons linked to the university, discrimination and unfairness would have occurred because the blood collecting organizations could not take any blood from homosexual students having been bound by the FDA policy. Therefore, to ensure that the university reached its goal of preventing its students and employees from unfair treatment and discrimination, it banned all blood drives. In this respect, the policy was highly effective because after the policy, no student or employee was subjected to blood drives within or off the campus unless when doing so as citizens but not students or employees representing San Jose State University. Secondly, the policy had an impact on donations. Evidence from Stanford Blood Center revealed that blood donations had decreased by 7.5 percent the same year that the policy was passed compared to the previous year. It also caused a ripple effect to other higher education institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania and Evergreen Community College District that reviewed their blood drive policies. The most important aspect that shows the effectiveness of the policy is the fact that it forced the FDA officials to meet representatives from San Jose State University and discuss the concerns that were raised in the policy. This meeting and the effect of the policy made FDA take measures to review the FDA policy related to blood donation and collection with a view of ensuring that it is not unfair and discriminatory to a section of United States citizens. Despite the fact that this was not done immediately, the effect of the policy was significant to the extent that the FDA could not assume that it has not been affected by the blood drive ban at San Jose State University. Policymaking is a challenging process and must meet certain setbacks (Howlett, 2013). The policy has not had any setbacks other than the criticism, which is expected to occur because not all people can agree to a course of action or the direction where the policy directs people. The policy fulfilled its purpose because it protected students and employees of San Jose State University from unfair treatment or discrimination in the blood drive. The long-term effect of this policy is not assured because it is unclear whether it might be changed or will lead a change in FDA’s policy or both will stay as they are currently. Recommendations Even though the policy has had positive effects in terms of being able to realize its goals, as it stands out, it has only reached short-term goals because it intends to initiate a process that will lead to the change of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifetime blood donor deferral policy (1983). In this regard, there are several suggestions that can be implemented to make it more effective. San Jose State University did not state the length of time that the policy will be implemented, the issues that could lead to its reversal or what will happen when it fulfills its purposes fully. Therefore, the University should clearly outline these aspects to ensure that its effect is understood by every stakeholder including the FDA. This might influence FDA’s decision on its policy and make the change process fast, something that will be beneficial to San Jose State University’s community and the public at large (Venetoklis, 2002). Secondly, criticisms have been laid against San Jose State University’s policy for failing to consider the importance of blood collection and the lives of those who need blood. This has been the case because in its reasons for implementing the policy, San Jose State University failed to address these issues and instead directed blame to FDA. Therefore, San Jose State University’s administration should clearly address this issue to show the nation that the main reason is not to cause suffering or sabotage blood collection initiatives, but to initiate a process that is inclusive of all people who want to donate blood and help the sick. Thirdly, despite the fact that the policy was developed and implemented specifically to protect students and employees of San Jose State University, it became a nationwide issue especially when media took it up. Other higher education institutions such as the ones mentioned in this discussion also reviewed their blood drive policies. The main target of these institutions is FDA’s policy. Therefore, San Jose State University should form a unified policy with like-minded institutions on the same issues with the same purpose to show that this is not just a small issue and should be addressed by the FDA immediately because it is passed by time. This will put more pressure on FDA and lead to the change of its policy to suit the institutions’ policy on blood drive. Conclusion San Jose State University Campus Blood Drive Ban was effected on January 29, 2008 by the president of the University, Don W. Kassing requiring all blood drives taking place at the campus and others that are held in other places by official student organizations and employees representing the university be banned. This was to respond to FDA’s unfair and discriminatory policy on blood donation brought forth by an employee of San Jose State University. Its main purpose was to protect the university’s students against unfair treatment and discrimination when donating blood based on being active homosexual men. The policy was effective in terms of championing its purpose. References Aminu, A. A., Tella, C. M., & Mbaya, P. Y. (2012). Public policy formulation and implementation in Nigeria. Public Policy and Administration Research, 2(5), 57-62. Howlett, M. (2013). Policy Work, Policy Advisory Systems and Politicization. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 4-6. Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: understanding public policy through its instruments—from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1-21. Mead, L. M. (2013). Teaching Public Policy: Linking Policy and Politics. Journal of public affairs education, 389-403. Nilsson, M., & Moodysson, J. (2014). Regional innovation policy and coordination: Illustrations from Southern Sweden. Science and Public Policy, scu024. Osman, F. A. (2002). Public policy making: theories and their implications in developing countries. Asian Affairs, 24(3), 37-52. Venetoklis, T. (2002). Public policy evaluation: introduction to quantitative methodologies. Government Institute for Economic Research, VATT-Research Reports, 90. Verschuere, B. (2009). The Role of Public Agencies in the Policy Making Process Rhetoric versus Reality. Public Policy and Administration, 24(1), 23-46. Read More