Given the editorial on Monday, October 6, one would think that the people at Red Cross were a group of homophobes in collaboration with the Administration, who together have launched a bigoted crusade to deny homosexuals like me one of our most fundamental rights-the right to have a needle stuck into our arms, to lose about a pint of blood, and to drink cranapple juice while munching on prunes.

It is true that the screening process of the Red Cross blocks from donating blood those in certain "high-risk" groups. Such groups include drug users, those who have engaged in sexual intercourse with prostitutes, those who have recently traveled to certain countries, and, yes, men who have had sex with other men since 1976.

The concern has been raised that this classification discriminates unfairly by constituting a blanket ban on all donations by gay men.

It doesn't.

I gave blood without any trouble. But this regulation isn't in place because the Red Cross hates gay people. It is because sexually active gay males are more likely to have AIDS-they account for 49 percent of the total cases, yet only 2 percent of the total population, according to the latest Center for Disease Control figures.

In an editorial published Monday, it was objected that the policy of the Red Cross is equivalent to barring African-Americans from giving blood because African Americans experience higher rates of HIV infection than Caucasians. I now have about three weeks of statistics behind me, and I could launch into a tirade about the difference between causation and correlation and correlation and how it applies to this case.

To keep it short: The link between race and HIV infection is correlatory, not causal. However, sex between one HIV-positive and one HIV-negative partner is much more likely to result in transmission if both partners are male than if one is male and the other female (and even less likely if they are both female). Finally, the comparison between race and sexuality fails because it fails to see the difference between sexual activity and sexual orientation. Given Harvard's social scene, there is a tremendous gap between these two terms, regardless of whether one is dealing with homosexuals or heterosexuals.

The Red Cross has an ethical responsibility to ensure that the blood it gives to patients is safe. Lives depend on this issue; it is not trivial. If this requires treating some people differently, perhaps even unfairly, it is unfortunate. Yet, it seems to me to be much more important that everyone receiving blood be protected from diseases than that everyone should have an equal chance to donate and feel warm and fuzzy inside. Giving blood isn't exactly a fundamental right. (I double checked the constitution to be sure.) Let's just hope that no one convinces the administration to throw the Red Cross off campus because of this. I don't think people should have to die for lack of an adequate blood supply just so we can feel all high and mighty about standing up for equality.

-Luke C. Platzer '00