I've only been in Ottawa once, in the middle of winter to try to negotiate a deal with Nortel. It was freaking cold, even running to and from the cabs. Unfortunately, the it doesn't seem to kill the PC virus. So what's the coldest capital in the world?

I would guess it's Ulan Bator. However they're spelling it this week. :)

Particularly disgusting considering cystic fibrosis strikes young children. Try telling the parents of a 5 year old their child has a death sentence and explain to me why the color of their skin matters. Seriously, what kind of thought process leads somebody to open their mouth and say something like that, much less 'apologize' by saying they didnt realize the disease affected girls too?

"You'll have to excuse me, i thought this horrifically painful and inevitably fatal disease that mainly affects kids only stuck white boys and hence I didn't see any point in combating it. But now that i hear from wikipedia that it also affects girls i'm back on board. Maybe there is someway to divert our funding to only helping female patients try to survive."

Seriously, how does that even cross someone's mind, much less get out their mouth, much less on the record?

I agree, it's right up there with the people who didn't want to talk about AIDS because it's a disease for "deviants".

Nortius Maximus wins the no-prize. #1 is indeed Outer Mongolia's capital, Ulan Bator.

alchemist is almost right. There is still a moral difference between a disease whose vector is genetic, versus a disease whose vector is behavioural.

One may still wish to cure syphilis, or AIDS, or kuru (brain disease that manifests in some cannibals), of course, for reasons of compassion and/or policy. And saying that you don't want to find a cure for kuru does indeed say that you are prepared to see other humans suffer. Not to mention the opportunity costs, as you later find your food supply manifesting a similar disease.

And yeah, a cure for syphilis does take some of the consequential sting out of promiscuity. On the other hand, it would have given us rather more years of Mozart.

But saying that you don't want to work on a cure for kuru says that you strongly disapprove of the behaviour of cannibalism. Whereas saying that you don't want to work on a cure for sickle-cell anemia because that's mostly a black problem, means you wish to see other people suffer solely for the color of their skin, without reference to the content of their character.

And there is a moral difference in those responses. They are not the same thing.

alchemist is almost right. There is still a moral difference between a disease whose vector is genetic, versus a disease whose vector is behavioural.

Agreed, also a disease whose vector is behavioral can be usually be prevented by changing one’s behavior. Genetic diseases not so much. Even if one doesn’t have any moral condemnation of the behavior (i.e. sex, smoking, etc.) that lead to the transmission of the disease transmitted by behavior, it is usually within the (reasonable) control of the afflicted person whether they will get the disease or not.

I'm sure the fact that C.F. is noted for having a high incidence among Mediterranean Jews had nothing to do with this. After all this is a university in Canada, which is surely above such things.

Maybe it's just me, but when the wind blows out of the north I smell fascist flatus.

Not entirely in control, Thorley, though cooperation toward ending risky practices should be expected. Not discharging sewage near your drinking water will do a lot to reduce cholera risk, for instance. Quit smoking, and the risk of lung cancer goes down.

Having said that, behaviour change approaches won't entirely fix a disease problem, which is why a cure is still a policy and moral imperative. You've still got a suffering population (size depends on the disease's thoroughness and speed), plus the inevitable people who didn't get the memo, the potential benefits with respect to any similar afflictions, and the accompanying public policy risks if it's a contagious disease (as CF is not). All of which feeds into prioritization.

AIDS ticks quite a few of those boxes, for instance. China in particular is refusing to deal with it openly, to its own considerable peril - and possibly to ours, at some point.

The exception would be cases in which one believes the risk-creating behaviour warrants capital punishment, or warrants the other punishments meted out by a disease that cripples rather than kills.

This explains why I would have (legitimately) taken a negative stance with respect to curing kuru, until the similar 'mad cow disease' came along which does not require murdering another human being. Some militant animal rights activists might not have their position changed by BSE, of course - this is a general framework, and one's own moral values must be plugged in.

I think the idea of capital punishment for sexual behaviour is idiotic, and the American population at large appears to be on my side there - with some exceptions, as alchemist notes. It is that contention which defines the moral argument that alchemist (and myself) have with the 'AIDS is a deviant's disease, let them die' crowd.

Which is still a very pointed moral argument. Just not the same moral argument as the one we'd have with the 'sickle cell anemia is a black disease, who cares' crowd. Which is an argument about the humanity of the victims, in the full sense of that term.

Which brings us back to Carleton. You can see how their twisted moral frameworks plug into that formula. And the amazing thing is, only one person in a council of over 30 people is able to understand this at any level.

"Higher education," indeed.

I have seen the light. No more breast cancer cure donations from me.

The reaction to this seems very overblown to me. After reading through all the links, it turns out that there where just a couple of almost-adults who did a very silly thing and that the overwhelming -- nearly universal -- reaction against that thing quickly caused a reversal. Opponents of the dangers of PC liberalism should be cheering at how quickly and effectively this attempt was squelched.

That said, I will defend these few students to an extent. Not their particular action, so much, as against the antagonism they received by pointing out that all of us do what they tried to do every day of our lives. Each time you give a donation to cancer research instead of to, say, muscular dystrophy, you are making a choice--though I wouldn't call it a "moral" one--about what kind of charities you wish to support. Should we impugn the values of someone who leaves the bulk of her estate to the local library rather than to an organization that works to feed the hungry? In general, I would support the right for everyone or anyone -- these students included-- to support whatever charities one wants for reasons of one's own, without the kind of opprobrium offered here.

There is still a moral difference between a disease whose vector is genetic, versus a disease whose vector is behavioural.

Say what? How are diseases moral? Or did you mean to say that there is a moral difference between the wish to cure your two categories of disease? While there is a difference between infectious diseases and genetic disorders, certainly there is no moral difference involved in the attempt to cure, prevent or reduce either, individually or a class. (Most AIDs incidences are spread heterosexually, and many, if not most, of the victims are not promiscuous--their sexual partners were.) Judgments about behavior may have a place in an individual's charitable giving decisions, but shouldn't have any place in determining health care priorities as a matter of public policy. Deadliness, rates of incidence, and so forth, should be the chief factors in determining where public resources go. A fatal genetic disorder that affects 1 in 300,000 should, in an ideal world, get more attention than one which affects 1 in 3 million. Likewise, annoying as they are, colds, however prevalent, should probably be less of a priority than tuberculosis, although both are infectious diseases that have nothing to do with one's behavior.

There is still a moral difference between a disease whose vector is genetic, versus a disease whose vector is behavioral.

Damn those hemophiliacs! Why can't they stop their bleeding behavior like everybody else?

I'm just saying, the above article is looking at disease as a political outlet. Seeing AIDS as "purely behavioral" is again, assigning politics to places where that may, or may not, be accurate. (like assuming that russian males should be upwardly mobile because they're white).

mark asks how a disease can have a moral/ behavioural component. The above example of kuru offers a pretty clear example - one that is clearly not the same as a genetically-transferred disease.

alchemist makes points I mostly agree with.

"Damn those hemophiliacs! Why can't they stop their bleeding behavior like everybody else?"

Well, precisely. Of course, this genetic disease has historically been disproportionately prevalent in white people, especially white people of privilege among colonialist, oppressive European nobility.

Certainly ups the risk factor for AIDS as well.

"I'm just saying, the above article is looking at disease as a political outlet. Seeing AIDS as "purely behavioral" is again, assigning politics to places where that may, or may not, be accurate."

True, and a valid caution. AIDS is not purely behavioural, just as lung cancer is not. It's wise to keep that in mind. In some cases, however, it will be beside the point.

For instance, if my school has been raising funds for AIDS charities (or lung cancer) for some time, and suddenly decides to withdraw that support for reasons that are pretty clearly hostile, I'd say the issue of behaviour is a very difficult leg to stand on unless you're prepared to make the "capital punishment" argument.

Because the practical thrust of that act is no longer "whom should we help?" but "we should no longer help these people."

And that's a very different kettle of fish.

If the disease is heavily or wholly genetic in origin, of course, we enter territory that becomes darker still - because it says "we should no longer help these people [on grounds that are intrinsic to their being]." In effect, we declare them to be not fully human, and less deserving of even basic considerations of life and well-being vs. who are "more equal than others" by virtue of their inborn characteristics.

That's far more than just "almost-adults who did a very silly thing".

They're legal adults who did an evil thing in overwhelming numbers (about a 30-1 vote), with their eyes wide open.

They got squelched because they embarassed the school, which is cheering to a point. But the moral vacuum that caused them to ever think such a motion acceptable remains. And the nature of that vacuum ought to concern everyone.

"In general, I would support the right for everyone or anyone -- these students included-- to support whatever charities one wants for reasons of one's own, without the kind of opprobrium offered here."

Would you support a university if they were to publicly disavow sickle cell anemia research because it only affects blacks, and specifically announced it was for that reason?

As far as AIDS goes, I agree its pretty outrageous to classify it as a behavioral disease. How many rape victims, or accidentally exposed, or a cheating spouse brought it into the marriage are out there? The comparison to kuru only really works if a lot of people are inadvertently (or via force) ingesting human flesh.

Is Lyme Disease a behavioral disease? You could just stay inside, and simple precautions are very likely to prevent it. But camping doesn't have the moral question marks that sex has, like it or not. Is it just relatively risky behavior we are talking about here, or is it risky behavior with a morally questionable element that is the real culprit?

Joe,

I don't see how it is evil for the students to decide to give the results of their fundraising efforts to one charity over another. They apparently simply wanted their efforts to go to find a cure for a disease that is as likely to afflict any race, rather than one. At least a couple of them did. The rest seemed only to want to contribute to a new charity, having already given several thousand to one in particular. Also, they seem to have been mostly in the early 20s. I've noticed that people seem to gain quite a bit of practical wisdom as they get into their 30s and 40s. This was just some misplaced idealism that they hadn't properly thought through.

Mark B,

No I wouldn't support any such thing. But that is not what happened here. No one tried to disavow research on anything. They simply chose to support research for a different type of disease. I gave money to cancer research recently. I don't believe I have gave money to AIDs research this year. If I come to the conclusion that cancer research is better funded and AIDs is underfunded, and decide to make a switch next year, I am not disavowing cancer research. I'm simply making a decision about which type of research I want to support. Given that I can't support all charities, I have to make some decisions.

If this were about public policy rather than private charity, I would agree with you. But we're not talking about appropriating public money here. We're talking about charitable giving. I think people who fundraise for charities can make choices about which charities they donate to based on a number of factors that are, in the end, really up to them, one of which could well be the nature of the population served.

To turn your question around, is there anything wrong with giving money to sickle cell research or care precisely because the disease affects black people disproportionately?

mark, an honest turnaround of the question would be:

"is there anything wrong with withdrawing financial support for sickle cell research or care precisely because the disease affects black people disproportionately?"

To the rest of us, the answer is "yes."

Yeah, that's what i was getting at. That's exactly my question.

I really do hope you stood up and threatened to beat the dreck out of everyone whom voted for that idea. Seriously, if you need help.
As to the left and white and male being the cause of everything don't watch TV. Commercial TV takes that males period are idiots. Then remember TV is owned by large transnational corporations. I doubt you think they are leftists.

"To turn your question around, is there anything wrong with giving money to sickle cell research or care precisely because the disease affects black people disproportionately?"

I don't think so, its not quite the same thing.

Look at it this way- if these clowns said they were withdrawing funding from CF in order to fund research of a disease that affected more people period, that's one thing, nobody could disagree with that. But they said they are withdrawing funding specifically because this disease was killing only a certain kind of person. By implication its not the raw number of lives they are concerned with, but whom those lives belong to. IE, some lives deserve more protection than others based on race. That is an idea we purport to abhor and consider out of the bounds of polite company, to say the least.

People do things for reasons of their own all the time. Thats fine, thats one thing. Publically announcing it makes it policy. And that goes well beyond personal conscience.

TV is owned by large transnational corporations. I doubt you think they are leftists.
Why? The left is international, so are the corporations. The left's propensity towards taxation and regulation can be manipulated by powerful interests to construct barriers to market entry. You don't have to act like Pol Pot to be a leftist, you just have to share his belief that society could be perfected if only you had enough power to shape it completely.

Mark B. & Joe,

Where you see an attempt merely to deprive or deny research for one disease, I see an attempt to fund research that affects a broader spectrum of people. After reading through the linked articles, it is pretty clear that the intent of the students was to rotate on an annual basis--and thereby broaden--the charities receiving their donations, rather than continue to give each year to the same one.

As a general rule, that's probably not a bad idea since some charities are always more in fashion than others and a rotation policy might end up getting funds to charities that, in a given year, otherwise wouldn't receive much.

Myself, I would have argued that research is research and that any breakthroughs made in curing one genetic disorder are bound to have widespread impact on the search for cures in others. But it seems these kids didn't think things through. This all seems to have occurred at one meeting and the idea of rotating charities came about to avoid having to chose one disease over another as most worthy. It was a probably a compromise vote between camps that wanted fund breast cancer, or AIDS, or CF. No doubt there was a strong sense of moral duty to be has helpful to as many groups as possible, rather than just one. I remember what it was like to be 21 and full of purpose and little judgement. I don't see any moral deprivation here.

Mark it is strange you don't adress the issue: excluding a disease because it hits a specific race and sex. I can see excluding a disease because it is less widespread not because of race and sex. Let's suppose there was a disease that only killed Black Men from USA and with a death rate of 50%. Well that disease will not be "inclusive" but would hit many more persons than many other inclusive ones.

If you don't see "moral deprivation" in their justifications...

"Where you see an attempt merely to deprive or deny research for one disease, I see an attempt to fund research that affects a broader spectrum of people."

Why wasn't it phrased that way? Why do YOU have to make that argument for them? Occam's Razor suggests they meant what they said, not what you infer they meant.

I'll restate the question- if the student organization at Bob Jones University decided to withdraw its funding from sickle cell anemia QUOTE "because it only affects black people" would you have a problem with that?

luckylucky,

I think we disagree over what the issue is. I think the students wanted to give to the funds they raised to the combatting of a disease that was more widespread than they believed CF to be. They weren't in any sense "excluding" CF except in the way that whenever you give to one charity you are "excluding" all others. If they chose to distribute their funds to charities on a annual rotating basis to ensure that their funds reach a broader range of people, I can't really gripe about it.

To me, after reading all the associated links, that is the issue.

Mark B.,

No, I wouldn't have any more problem with Bob Jones scenario than I have with this case. Although, I agree, that in either case, at first glance it looks rather iffy. But if you delve into it just a little bit and see how it came about and what the intentions were....not to mention the end result...the whole thing becomes decidedly less sensational and much more bland. Of course, if you are looking to to stoke the fires of anti-PC rage, you wouldn't want to look behind the headlines here.

The comments from the kids who did this make it pretty clear what they were trying to do. I don't think I am "inferring" anything. I'm just reading their explanations. Rather foolishly, they didn't see how easily their resolution could be misinterpreted--or how eagerly it would be misinterpreted. Rather than continue to raise funds for a disease that afflicts only one segment of the population, they decided to raise funds for a different disease each year. Since most diseases affect white men as much as any other comparable group, it isn't as though they were trying to deny help to that group.... they were simply trying to add other groups to the mix. This was very clearly their intent. They were very clearly horrified at how their intent was interpreted. It was their own fault, but outside of sheer meanness there is no reason not to accept their explanations as genuine. To me Occam's Razor suggests they were foolish, not evil.

I'd be interested to know whether they had already raised the money, or if the fundraiser has yet to happen. If they had already raised the money, it would be interesting to know whether those who contributed thought it was going to one place rather than another. If so, they'd really have no choice but to give it to CF. (They voted to do so anyway). But if not, there's nothing wrong with going out and fundraising for muscular dystrophy this year instead of cystic fibrosis. They're equally worthy causes, are they not? You're not suggesting they are compelled to go out and fundraise for cystic fibrosis year after year, are you, or face moral condemnation.

"No, I wouldn't have any more problem with Bob Jones scenario than I have with this case."

Fair enough, your opinion. I disagree.

"Although, I agree, that in either case, at first glance it looks rather iffy. But if you delve into it just a little bit and see how it came about and what the intentions were....not to mention the end result...the whole thing becomes decidedly less sensational and much more bland."

If you are willing to assume what you are assuming you mean. There is a word for this- apologizing.

"Rather than continue to raise funds for a disease that afflicts only one segment of the population, they decided to raise funds for a different disease each year."

But every disease affect 1 segment of the population- those sick with the disease. The POINT is that in colorblind society we would say that X number of people are stricken with this diease. Not X number of (insert color here). What i'm saying is that its perfectly acceptable to say there are diseases that affect more people in raw numbers and hence the funding should be shifted. It is WRONG to say there are diseases that affect more people of different races. Its the raw numbers that matter, at least if you believe that a person is a person is a person.

What you defense is lacking is any indication of WHY these people brought up race in the first place? By your (or their) logic, a disease that killed 10,000,000 white people a year can be argued to be less deserving than a disease that killed 10 people of random race. Your argument only works in an a priori context that demands enforcing race equality, even where nature has dictated otherwise. Thats where the PC element comes in.

Mark B.,

If the first place, it isn't my argument. And I am most certainly not advocating any policy based on this type of thinking. As I said quite clearly in the beginning, I think this attempt was misguided. I am only defending their actions from a set of particular attacks. I think the reaction is overblown and based on a misinterpretation of the students intentions. I think the matter is being cast in an unfair light for less than savory reasons.

I suspect an eagerness to uncover harmful effects of the dreaded PC... an eagerness that blinds some people to more mundane reality here. This is the kind of thing you'd expect from a Bill O'Reilly. And to describe this as the result of an evil, or as immoral, when all it was was good intentions missing the mark, is truly bizarre to me. There is plenty of evil in the world. This just isn't an example.

I agree with you that disease is disease. There are no moral or immoral diseases. I also agree with you -- and stated in my first comment on this -- that incidence of occurrence seems a better guide when deciding which diseases to combat.

But these are student. They have enrolled in a university in order to learn. Now they are learning. It was a good lesson. Let's not demonize them. After all, they have admitted their mistake and reversed it.

B gates
Could you elaborate on your thoughts on what leftist are/is in regards to corporations? You are the first poster at this site I have ever seen make that argument.

"I think we disagree over what the issue is. I think the students wanted to give to the funds they raised to the combatting of a disease that was more widespread than they believed CF to be. They weren't in any sense "excluding" CF except in the way that whenever you give to one charity you are "excluding" all others. If they chose to distribute their funds to charities on a annual rotating basis to ensure that their funds reach a broader range of people, I can't really gripe about it.

To me, after reading all the associated links, that is the issue."

No. What motive given for that exclusion: "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men."

Unless you state that is false you are only spinning. The exclusion was racial and sexist. Nowhere numbers appear. Neither suffering level, another potential legitimate decison maker, neither potential success, neither children which would mean age descrimination but maybe justified. If they wanted to just rotate funds they would not need to talk about white men. They could just have stated that more people would get their money, tough they should consider the dillution of effort.

The fact that they even apparently made bad research about disease shows that their priorities lay probably more in political/social fashion more than anything.

Why not divert funds away from prostate cancer research, as it affects only men, and men are the inferior gender?

Better yet, why not create national healthcare, and then have a policy where registed Republicans are prohibited from using the emergency room? Why not put registered Republicans at the bottom of organ waiting lists? Why not make sure rare blood types only go to 'progressives'? Why not do that?

And they call US Nazis?