CBS's Fictionalized History
Reagan treated AIDS as a "handicap," not a "sin."
By Douglas W. Kmiec
Next month, CBS will air *The Reagans*, a new mini-series, and there is
growing concern, based on circulating scripts, that the portrayal will be
biased or, worse, inaccurate. The *New York Times* has
reported<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/arts/television/21REAG.html?ex=1067...>,
for example, that "the script . . . accuses Mr. Reagan of having no interest
in addressing the AIDS crisis, but of asserting that the patients of AIDS
essentially deserved their disease."
This is historical distortion. Indeed, if uncorrected, it may well fit the
very definition of libeling a public figure: reckless disregard for the
truth.
How Ronald Reagan viewed AIDS was of particular importance to me, since the
former president tasked me with advising him on certain legal aspects of
AIDS policy. In the late 1970s and 80s, AIDS was not well known to the
general public, and there was considerable uncertainty in the medical
community about how AIDS was transmitted. Researchers at Harvard had
suggested that transmission by saliva was possible, and there was a good
deal of public hysteria driven by the thought that the fatal illness could
be spread by such casual contact. Schools were denying entrance to children
with the disease, and some hospitals even declined to treat AIDS patients.
It was the Reagan administration that cut through this misinformation and,
after careful deliberation, concluded that AIDS patients were entitled to be
treated as "handicapped" under federal laws that protect such individuals
from discrimination.
This would have been a courageous act for any president, but it was even
more so for President Reagan. Given the medical uncertainty and the fact
that AIDS was transmitted largely through sexual promiscuity, President
Reagan not only needed to educate the public, but also to encourage his core
political base to have charity toward those who consciously engage in
morally questionable behavior.
He didn't hesitate to do so. When an initial legal inquiry suggested that
those with AIDS might not be eligible for civil-rights protection because
employers and others could assert a legitimate "fear of contagion," whether
or not that fear was reasonable or scientifically verifiable, it was
President Reagan who appointed a commission on AIDS that ultimately asked
for that legal thinking to be re-examined.
As the former president's constitutional legal adviser, this was primarily
my responsibility, but President Reagan also appointed many other helpful
and intelligent voices that helped bring about the right result. C. Everett
Koop, President Reagan's surgeon general, readily conceded the medical
uncertainties of the time, but in typical Koop style, he also rendered a
medical judgment free of political bias. Said Dr. Koop: Those with AIDS,
even those in the earliest stages of the disease, have abnormalities or
impairments of the immune system which could affect a major life activity,
such as the prospect for giving birth to a healthy baby.
Having obtained the best available medical information, the president
concurred with my legal opinion that, as a matter of law, individuals with
AIDS were entitled to existing civil-rights protections and could be
excluded from those protections only where they could be shown, on an
individual basis, to pose a threat to the health or safety of others or to
be unable to perform their required jobs.
As anticipated, this result was not uniformly embraced. Yet president Reagan
and his White House staff saw it as so important that they convened a major
press conference at the Justice Department to highlight the opinion. The
conference took place in October 1988 — not an ideal time to be announcing
controversial news, as President Reagan was then campaigning for the
election of his then-vice president, George H. W. Bush.
When a reporter at the conference demanded to know "Why is it good to extend
protection to people with AIDS?" and "Why is it good to include this group
with people in wheelchairs and crutches?", Reagan gave a straightforward
answer: Because that is the law as we believe Congress wrote it. "We have
fairly interpreted the statute," he said.
The historical record is plain: Ronald Reagan was not indifferent toward
those who suffered with AIDS; rather, having taken an oath to "take care
that the laws are faithfully executed," he did just that — even when it was
of no discernible political benefit to him or his party, and reasonable
minds could and did disagree. History should be retold, not rewritten.
— *Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Chair and professor of constitutional law at
Pepperdine University and former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents
Reagan and George H. W. Bush. The full story of the AIDS inquiry can be
found in his book,* The Attorney General's
Lawyer<http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0275939839>
Just to add my perspective, which is admittedly a bit different.
I lived in Charlotte North Carolina in the mid to late 1980s. I can recall
being at a party in the recently built condominiums at the Charlotte Motor
Speedway during the summer of 1987, where a number of prominent NASCAR race
car drivers were present. Among them, was Tim Richmond. I was not "close
friends" with Richmond, but I knew him, as well as a number of the other
drivers from work related activities.
I also would, from time to time and on occasion, "partake" in the snorting
of cocaine. (I haven't seen any cocaine, much less snorted any since
October of 1988, but I digress) and at this particular party in the summer
of 1987, I did snort some cocaine with Richmond....We shared the same
straw......
The following year, Tim became deathly ill, and no one knew what was the
cause of his illness; it was a well guarded secret. Richmond died in August
of 1989, and when he died, there was still relatively little known about
AIDS. I can recall exactly where I was at, when I heard the news of
Richmond's passing, and immediately got in touch with another race car
driver, whose family is well known and who is the son of "NASCAR Royalty",
because he too was at that party the evening that I am referencing, and also
"partook".....With the same straw. The both of us literally had no clue as
to whether we had been exposed; what the symptoms were; and just how
significant our risk was.
The point of telling this story, is to demonstrate the mindset at the time,
with most Americans. Although there were many in the Gay community who had
been suffering from this dreadful disease, most of America was unaware of
what was going on with AIDS in the late 1980s, and we were totally ignorant
regarding individuals who were suffering and dying! Tim Richmond is a good
example!
After I started reading up and understanding what was going on with AIDS, it
literally changed my lifestyle! I was thirty-two years of age in 1989, in
the prime of my life; making a considerable amount of money for my age and
that era, and I had never engaged in any homosexual activity. I traveled a
good bit, and I could best be described as "promiscuous", (or maybe better
said, "A Cheap Slut") when traveling.
That all changed in 1989 after Richmond's death. I was so naive, that I
didn't have a clue Rock Hudson was Gay until after he had passed just a few
years earlier from this dreadful disease. Freddy Mercury with "Queen"?? I
am dead serious, I literally never considered him to be a Gay man! I don't
think most Americans did!
Later, in the early 1990s, I did become somewhat involved with friends of
mine in New York who were actively involved in trying to get our government
and the general public informed and attuned to what was threatening, but
more importantly what was non-threatening about AIDS. I also lost a dear
friend in New York to AIDS, which also hit close to home.
So, to put it in perspective, Ronald Reagan was no different than the rest
of America in the mid to late 1980s, and like it or not, Reagan was
literally instrumental in sounding the alarm bell to mainstream America.
We were ignorant, as a Nation and individually, and America literally had no
clue back in the late 1980s. When pointing fingers and framing who it is
that should be to blame, it is requisite that this ignorance needs to be
kept in mind.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment