Letters to the Editor
HIV
Prevention Grants
As the leaders of an organization whose
leading principles include the fight to end injustice we would like to
point out that there are many more issues with the recent Vermont Department
of Health (DoH) funding decisions than were outlined in Ric Kadour's article
"Vermont Health Dept. Announces HIV Prevention Grants."
First, it is incorrect that Outright Vermont
receives funding under the "Heterosexuals at Increased Risk"
category due to federal restrictions. There are no federal restrictions,
rather the DoH claims that the Vermont HIV Prevention Community Planning
Group defined heterosexuals as including queer youth, and the DoH must
act accordingly.
Beyond the obvious problem in considering
queer youth heterosexual, during the recent review process an External
Grant Reviewer criticized, and likely penalized, Outright for applying
in this category. Not only was Outright hurt by the perception that we
were culturally incompetent, but by being in the heterosexual category
Outright was forced to compete with a greater number of programs and for
a smaller amount of funds – and were actually prohibited from competing
against more appropriate organizations.
Focusing only on gay and bi men, the article
omits many other questionable decisions the DoH made in allocating this
funding and unfairly targets other organizations who received funding.
Attacking the Vermont Harm Reduction Coalition's application by citing
numerous negative reviewer remarks and not providing the same treatment
to others is misleading. A similar reading of R.U.1.2?'s review reveals
comments such as "are we giving them special treatment?", "[their
program is] a real stretch from POL model," "Several concerns
about this piece [chatroom organizing]," and "Budget? Very concerning."
We do not intend to single any one application
out, only to point out that concerns were raised by multiple applications.
A fair hand would have been appreciated in [Kadour's] rendering of which
programs deserved funding. In addition, the Harm Reduction Coalition applied
under a different category of funds, hardly making fair the comparison
that gay men are losing HIV prevention money to IDUs.
Criticism of the DoH's application process
would have also been warranted. Further exploration of ACoRN;s review
makes known that the agency appears to not have received funding because
they couldn't present their program well on paper. The DoH made it clear
that this would be a competitive process, but given the size of our state
and the agency's history providing prevention services, it seems illogical
that their writing skills or lack thereof would justify such a drastic
cut in funding.
Other glaring issues that have not
yet been brought to light include the nearly complete absence of funds
to support people of color and a gross discrepancy in funding versus population
and HIV incidence (programs in Brattleboro received only slightly less
than Burlington). In spite of the Department's claims that this was an
objective process, funding decisions appear to be based less on the application's
scores and more on personal conjecture.
The queer community should certainly be
concerned about our treatment by the DoH and we should do so in solidarity
with other communities who were similarly affected. Although it is presented
as a "done deal" we encourage everyone with concerns about the
process to raise them with the DoH HIV/AIDS Division and the Commissioner
of Health. Comments from both the internal and external review process
as well as each application's scores are public information available
from the DoH HIV/AIDS Bureau by request.
Editor Euan Bear hit the nail on the head
in her editorial stating, "The state Department of Health needs to
recognize and serve the gay community in proportion to its health needs
and not in lockstep with the ideology of an anti-gay federal Administration."
The DoH's allocation of public funds seems to have done just that.
Kate Jerman &
Lluvia Mulvaney-Stanak
Co-Executive Directors,
Outright Vermont
Burlington
Writer Ric Kadour responds: Thank you for contributing to what could
easily be an exhausting, nauseating list of complaints against VDH's allocation
of HIV prevention funds.
While all grant applications received some
negative comments, only the Vermont Harm Reduction Coalition was faulted
for glaring ethical violations such as violating the confidentiality of
their clients. VHRC was also the only organization to receive more funds
to do less work.
Furthermore, solidarity is a two-way
street. Just as gay men ceded a portion of the HIV prevention pie eight
years ago to other communities, perhaps it's time for injection drug users
to recognize that it is they who are now benefiting from the unjust antics
of the Vermont Department of Health.
Vulture Fan
I really enjoyed the 'manifestations' presented
by Anne Moore in her recent Culture Vulture column. I enjoyed her humor
so much that I passed the article on to a number of non-regular OITM
readers, all of whom enjoyed it as much as I.
I would just like to say that, while the
movie [she imagined] may fall under the "romantic comedy" title,
one of her predictions has come true, albeit in a small way. I'm referring
to James Gandolfini's role in the Hollywood blockbuster The Mexican,
where he plays a gay hit man.
While it is not a leading role, and while
not an essential story in the plot, the Sopranos' leading man does an
amazing job of breaking through typecasting.
Cindy Marcelle
Burlington
John Paul & George
"Pope John Paul II put lobbying against
gay marriage at the top of the Vatican's agenda for 2005." He put
this over peace on Earth between Christians, Muslims and Jews. He put
this over doing more for the millions of hungry people around the Globe.
Is it just me or is something wrong with this picture?
President Bush at the peak of his reelection
campaign at a White House Press conference stated a need for an amendment
to the US Constitution to federalize marriage laws as a means to insure
an end to gay marriages. Mr. Bush put his reelection in the hands of radical
fundamentalist Christian beliefs, with his "Family Values" campaign.
"Family Values" appears to mean
"opposed to gay marriages and woman's rights to have birth control."
These two issues carried him into being re-elected. The war in Iraq, the
economy were not all that important! Is it me or is something wrong here?
So the spiritual leader of the Catholic
Church, and the President of the United States agree, that preventing
gay marriages is the top of the agenda of needs for 2005. [While] the
Pope and the President can never stop two men or two women from falling
in love, they do have the power though to make their lives difficult by
promoting hate and discriminating laws. On a personal note, I am a trans-woman.
We are a minority of people born with intersex conditions, or with gender
dysphoria. We have surgeries as children, and as adults, some wanted surgeries,
some not wanted. Can the pope and the president tell me whom I can fall
in love with and marry?
Janice Josephine Carney
Seminole, FL