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