It’s hard to know what to make of a recent flare-up in the Pea Ridge School District over attendance of three children whose lives were disrupted by political agendas and a very public handling of those kids’ private lives.
Because of privacy laws, it’s dift cult to know exactly what the facts are, but we know a few things: The district came under fire from HIV advocates after school oftcials required those students toprovide test results regarding their HIV status. This, according to the school district’s attorney, came as a result of information the kids’ mother and a sister were HIV-positive.
District oft cials askedthe guardians of the children, who are in foster care and under the custody of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, to produce the documentation as a protective measure, so they could know how to respond to potential health-related incidents.
An advocacy group revealed two of the children have “sensory” issues that can lead to biting and scratching themselves and others.
School oftcials said they didn’t send anyone home because of fear of HIV; rather, three students were suspended because their guardians hadn’t produced the necessary medical documentation since it was first requested in May. Advocates and school district oftcials alike acknowledge it’s extremely rare for HIV to be transmitted through biting or other activities likely to happen at school, but not impossible.
Attorney David Matthews, no slouch in the legal world, cited Centers for Disease Control information on occupational exposure to HIV and how to respond to it. That, he said, demonstrated the school district’s need for medical information given the totality of circumstances.
Advocates for people with HIV are right to be vigilant against cases of discrimination, but are they opposed also to preparation that could help respond to the needs of the students, the teachers and the student body?
If a school district or any other organization had the gall to say “You’re HIV-positive, so you have no place here,” that would be cause for fury. But there’s no indication that’s what happened in Pea Ridge, and people who automatically concluded a bunch of ignorant bigots headed the school system were themselves operating based on the shallow assumptions they needed to fuel their pre-ignited outrage.
Advocates clashing with schools get to craft these situations into whatever scenario they want.
School district oftcials are prevented by law from revealing personal information about any students. If something doesn’t fit the narrative activists want to push, it’s simply left out of the equation, and school oftcials cannot do much about it.
The key question is whether the district has the legal right to ask for health records on the basis of protecting other students and staff from communicable diseases. We’re not lawyers and won’ pretend to practice without a law license. We also don’t know whether any of the kids involved in this incident has any communicable disease, and we shouldn’t be told.
The overarching goal of the district must be to educate children in a safe environment, and that means all children. District oft cials have a responsibility to those three children as much as they do to the entire school population. We believe they’ve tried to live up to that responsibility.
Where there should be agreement among all parties is the critical importance of protecting medical information and of ensuring young people do not become stigmatized by an open discussion of their private affairs. We appreciate the school district did everything in its power to accomplish this.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 10/02/2013