HIV positive boy denied admission sues Hershey school

A news article from Yahoo! News addresses the issue of an HIV-positive 13-year-old boy who was denied admission from a boarding school in Hershey, Pennsylvania as a result of what the school official claimed to be an issue of safety concerns. This resulted in the family of the boy suing the school, and though the school planned to ask a federal judge to see to this case, the family decided to file a lawsuit for what had happened. Attorneys representing the boy and his mother compared the school’s actions to the Ryan White case, where Ryan, who was an HIV-positive boy, was expelled from school in the 1980s due to his infection which led to the Ryan White Care Act of 1990. Certainly, the decision of whether or not to admit the child due to his infection remains a rather controversial case as it deals mainly with issues concerning ethics and sense perception.

It may appear that the denial of admission had to be attributed more to the stigma of the child’s diseases rather than the actual threat the disease poses to other students or faculty members at the school. Here lies the main issue of ethics, in which the decision made by the school would be criticized for since the National Association of State Boards of Education claims that “federal and state laws prohibit discrimination of the basis of a real or perceived disability” which includes having HIV. There exist many other laws that also further this idea by allowing students with HIV and other disabilities to participate in classes and activities without the imposition of unnecessary conditions and other restrictions. But the question here lies in what constitutes as a “disability”. Do people have to be physically or mentally disabled in order to count as having a disability? Should the boy be denied of an education simply because he has a disease that was probably conceived outside of his jurisdiction? This draws to the idea of how it is certainly difficult to determine how the boy contracted HIV as the way he obtained the disease could be fairly prominent. If he got it genetically, the conflicts surrounding this case may not be as momentous. However, if he received it through sexual contact (though absurd-sounding yet possible), it would pose a more serious debate considering how he is still a 13-year-old boy and may only seem natural for him to “engage in more sexual activities” in the future. Some may argue that this will lead to the eventual spread of this disease among the school community. One must note that not only is it difficult to determine how the boy got it, but also, who else in the school may have it as the side effects are fairly faint in earlier years, which could be problematic in terms of attempting to decide the severity of this issue and conclude his case.

One must also consider that since the school (Milton Hershey School) is a cost-free private school, they have the ability to deny any child admission into the school. They deny federal aid, which in turn grants them the power to make the decision of not admitting a child. However, if the boy meets the requirements of the school, he should be allowed to attend despite his unfortunate circumstance and the “safety concerns” of others. If the illness was passed onto other kids, the school would definitely be responsible for it and more lawsuits may be filed against them. However, this raises the question of what the school perceives to be an issue of safety concern. Does the boy fit the criteria for having an illness that may be detrimental to the health of others? How exactly can one measure the extent to which an illness becomes a safety concern? In comparison to when HIV was first discovered, scientists have gained a better understanding in today’s society to realize that HIV cannot be transmitted unless through sex, the sharing of needles, blood transfusion or from a mother to a fetus during childbirth. Therefore it seems rather questionable when one of the school representatives refers to the child’s “disability” as a “chronic communicable disease”.

For one, HIV cannot be transferred through other measures like the ones stated above and may not be as easily attainable as the common flu. There lies the possibility however, that the disease can still be transferred from the boy to his schoolmates. The boy may be susceptible to injures or cuts if he were to get one while playing in the playground for example. Since the children who enroll at this school do range from the ages of 8 to 18, the chances of them being infected if they came in contact with the boy’s blood may increase, despite the very minute possibility of this actually happening. Still, this must be filed into consideration. But what constitutes the range of “disabilities” and how might one decide if the boy is disabled or not? Clearly he is not physically or mentally at a disadvantage. Another aspect to reflect on is how the boy is only 13-years-old, and thus may not use objects like infected needles to harm other students in his class. It is certainly probably for certain measures to be taken with the use of extra precautions, but the chances of the boy transferring HIV remains low. However, it is stated that the boy is an “avid athlete”, which indicates that in this respect in order to completely eliminate the chances of HIV transfer, perhaps the needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the individual.

The question thus lies in the prospect of the parents having decided to send the boy to a private school. A possible solution for this case is simply to send the boy to a public school, which provides students with good education as well. Since the boy already has the credentials as an honor student and avid athlete, he is more likely to succeed in a school where it is perhaps better accommodated to facilitate his “extra” needs. Another solution is to have him home-schooled under the surveillance of his parents to prevent any further social concerns that may be raise more conflicting issues that could be detrimental to his mental health or esteem.

A real life example that has similar knowledge issues to the above case is the ban on gays in the military and armed forces, especially pertaining to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. It really becomes an issue between society and a group of minorities in this case, as the act of making it illegal for gay men, lesbians, or bisexuals to participate in the military is a violation of their individual rights. They are denied of their right to pursue their interests simply because of heterosexual attitudes and concerns regarding homosexuality, which thus portrays how society looks down on them simply because they are part of the minority. The reason behind this did not relate to the physical capabilities of these homosexuals, nor their courage, dependability or skills. Thus it becomes difficult to determine whether or not they should be allowed to participate in the military as people have different attitudes towards the rights of homosexuals. In turn, it becomes to draw the line between what is socially acceptable versus what is not, if judgment is based solely on the innate nature of the minority since they do not lack in physical and mental capabilities.