Hershey Boycott: AIDS Activists Step Up Call To Support HIV-Positive Teen Rejected From School

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Amid the Easter weekend surge in candy sales, AIDS activists Friday stepped up their calls for a boycott of Hershey candy to protest the refusal of a boarding school with ties to the company to admit a teenager because he is HIV-positive.

Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation staged protests in San Francisco, New York City and Hershey, where company headquarters and the school are based.

"We are asking the public to send a clear message to Hershey that there are `No Kisses for Hershey' as Hershey continues its path of discrimination and ignorance," Michael Weinstein, the foundation president, said in a news release.

The company did not immediately return a call for comment. But Milton Hershey School defended its decision, saying it was difficult but appropriate under the circumstances.

"We hope that fair-minded people also understand that we did not make this decision in ignorance, but that we looked at all the complicated issues surrounding our unique environment and made the decision we thought was best for our students," Connie McNamara, the school's vice president for communications, said in an email Friday.

The AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania sued the school in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia last year, contending that the school violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in denying admission to the boy, whose name has not been made public.

Lawyers for the group say the boy is an honor roll student who controls the HIV with medication and poses no health threat to the other students. A person can have the virus that causes AIDS but not have the disease.

Ronda Goldfein, attorney for the AIDS Law Project, said she is not involved with the boycott effort but the protests have been a morale booster for the boy and his mother.

"For a 14-year-old to hear that he's danger, he's a threat, that has really been hard for him," Goldfein said.

The boarding school is separate from The Hershey Co. but is financed by the Milton Hershey School Trust, which holds the controlling interest in the company. Founded in 1909 by chocolate maker Milton Hershey, the school provides a free education to low-income and socially disadvantaged students. About 1,850 students in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade are currently enrolled.

In a statement on its website, the school recognized that HIV is not transmitted through casual contact, but said the risk of sexual contact is a significant concern.

"We systematically encourage abstinence, and we educate our children on sexual health issues," the statement says. But "our teenagers are the same as teens all across the country. Despite our best efforts, some of our students will engage in sexual activity with one another. Given our residential setting, when they do, they will be doing so on our watch."

Related on HuffPost:

Comments

[zahra tomas]

09:18 AM on 05/27/2012

This is idiotic. First, have they tested the entire student body for communicable diseases? There could be children and faculty members there now with Herpes, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis, or even HIV as typically test are only done if the person is considered "at risk," if they're symptomatic, or they have requested it. Not that it would matter, because if the boarding school is so swinging that they believe the boys and girls can't resist a good romp with the new kid, it is likely that these kids are engaging in a number of activities which could lead to an unfavorable consequence, like I don't know a baby... Basically the schools position is we are prestigious enough to require excellent performance of our students, and wish to do so in the safest most controlled environment, but we're too inept to watch your children all the time, so they might be doing anything when they're not in class. So, instead of working harder to ensure that the children are not engaging in activities which might be harmful for many reasons other than catching HIV, we'll just keep this one kid out... problem solved. BTW, did you know that you can contract HIV when you're off campus too? Not only should this kid not go to this school, but the other parents need to pick up their kids too, that is once they're finished copulating with their peers.

[HudsonSpeaks]

06:20 PM on 04/25/2012

The public statement about abstinence was very surprising, and interesting. It implies not only are the kids in that school shacking up in the dorms together, but also that informed consent and education are not enough for teenagers...that they must be protected from themselves sexually. I don't think I agree with that.

It is a given that you could teach children a well rounded sex education (including abstinence AND contraception AND relationship skills), and the kids could go off and have unprotected sex anyway. That is certainly true. But it seems overkill to suggest that you take so much responsibility for that happening that you would separate the kids to avoid it happening. They are saying "if any student sleeps with the new kids, and gets HIV, we would be responsible". I don't know that I agree with that. If a female student got pregnant, would they feel responsible for that? Are they afraid of lawsuits from other parents if transmission occurred? I am not sure if this is the school being weak/silly, or simply the power of our lawsuit happy culture driving them to dopey decisions.

[Steven Peters]

10:49 AM on 04/18/2012

With what the school suggests, that any child that poses a threat to other children shouldn't attend the school.

So that would mean, that on the presumption that children that do engage in sexual activity, like kissing for instance, the potentially deadly disease of Hepatitis, which can be transmitted through kissing; or if a child has the Flu and another child catches the Flu then dies from it, then wouldn't that also fall into a discriminatory category for the potential "threat" that a child may catch these two diseases, thus being barred from attending school?

It's outrageous to see this kind of discriminatory action done to an innocent child.

It's disturbing to suggest that those living with HIV would pose a threat to anyone - what would actually pose a threat is ignorance and irresponsible behavior - two of which, the school clearly has towards this child.

Maybe they should look at their discriminatory policies and stand on the right side of history and moral decency, and stop spreading the stigma of HIV.

EndHIVStigma.org

[johnb123]

04:41 PM on 04/09/2012

The parents of this school have every right to protect their own children. If they allow a student with HIV to enter this school, other parents will remove their children.  I know I would.

[GrahamInCanada]

05:16 PM on 04/09/2012

First of all, it is irrelevant that you would remove your child if this child was admitted, in the same way it is irrelevant that you would remove a boy or a girl from a co-ed school, your child from a racially mixed school, your child from a religiously diverse school.

You do not have the right to say that some other child must not attend.

Second, this school proposes that its students do have consensual sex, try as hard as it might to prevent this, and thus, adding an HIV positive student to the mix is dangerous.

Wouldn't that be enough for you to remove your child? There are other STDs, not to mention, pregnancy, to consider, don't you think?

[Allonsey65]

08:15 PM on 04/09/2012

Why would you bother? For all you know, the next school you send your kid to is going to have an HIV-positive kid as well. Except that you won't know about it, since the school is under no obligation to tell you. The "risk" to your child would be exactly the same as it is now, the only difference is you wouldn't know about it.

Actually, for all you know, your child attends school with one or more HIV positive kids right now. Maybe you should pull him/her out of school right now just to be safe.

[GrahamInCanada]

01:51 PM on 04/09/2012

It is distressing to read some of the discussion going on here.

Unsupported allegations are flying, hysterical suppositions are replacing facts, ad hominem attacks making it through the moderator's guard, sweeping generalizations, irrelevant conclusions, affirming the consequent, straw men falling, apophasis, appeals to fear, all setting a downright distressing tone to the discussion.

The school alleges that the child is a direct threat to others in that the child could bleed on an open wound of another person or have unprotected sex with other students while resident in family style housing with a dozen other students, a proxy mother and father and the proxy parents' biological children. The school fears that it could be sued if such were to happen.

Therefore, the school refuses to process an application from the child.

The school has not made most of the arguments being tossed into the mix here to defend it, in its own defense.

I can hope that facts might bring this discussion back up to a level worthy of the HP comments section, so here are the court documents:

The child's claim: http://www.aidslawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Complinait-filed.pdf

The school's defence: http://www.aidslawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2-3-12-MHS-Answer-and-Counterclaim.pdf

The child's reply: http://www.aidslawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2-27-12-Pls-Answer-to-Counterclaims.pdf

And if anybody wanting to comment would look at the documents first, please.

[FaceTheTruth00]

11:08 AM on 04/09/2012

A couple of comments.

1. I don't think it's right to champion "taking the school down" financially, because this is a school for poor children. Sue the school and you punish the kids who go to the school.

2. I don't think the same rules can be applied to this school as other private schools, because in other schools, the student pays a tuition. In this case, the student doesn't pay anything; the school pays all expenses.

If this student attended a school where he was paying, it would be a lot harder to turn down his application.

But, given that this is a private charity which is paying for all student expenses, I think it will be hard to win a lawsuit against them. Many apply, few are accepted; and there's no mandate that says any citizen is entitled to a free private education, complete with free room, board, food and medical.

As for the "undue hardship", I would say that depends. If the school provides all medical treatment, then wouldn't they assume the cost of all the student's HIV medications and treatment?

Given that regular schools don't assume medical costs of their students, I think this is where the suit will be thrown out. The school specifies students be healthy (no pre-existing conditions?). It's one thing to have school nurses on staff to treat the flu, cuts and scrapes, etc., and quite another to take on the medical expenses of someone with a chronic illness.

[FaceTheTruth00]

11:20 AM on 04/09/2012

Then you also have to consider precedence.

If the school has to pay for all his medical expenses (how much do HIV drugs cost?) for his entire time at the school, then the next person who comes along who has a chronic illness, disability, or requires other expensive care, is going to expect the same, and perhaps sue to get it as well.

I think someone else mentioned that there are limits on things like mental handicaps as well. Probably because the school would have to take on the added expense of specialized teachers, and perhaps have to modify parts of the school to make it compliant and/or safe.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying that I think there are certain things about this school that differentiate it from a regular private boarding school (like the school paying for everything) that they won't be able to hold it to the same rules.

And it's perhaps sad to say, but realistically if the cost per student goes way up, then fewer students are going to be able to benefit from this school.

[Allonsey65]

02:37 PM on 04/09/2012

I'm sorry, but which school have you heard of that assumes the costs of medical expenses for its students? To my knowledge, no school would do that.

Further, your argument would seem to also approve of the school denying, say, a kid with cancer. Do you really believe that kids with cancer should not be permitted to get an education?

[beegeez]

04:22 AM on 05/30/2012

Do you have a clue?
Why would the school assume responsibility for costs of medication?
Why do you think the teen is on medication?
What specialized training would teachers require?
In what manner would the school have to be prepared?
Frankly, I find this post to be one of the most uninformed and ignorant on this thread.

[intellifran]

10:00 AM on 04/09/2012

Law in Iowa as it relates to HIV and AIDS: According to Iowa Code 709C, it is a crime if an HIV-positive person "engages in intimate contact with another person," or "transfers, donates, or provides the person's blood, tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious bodily fluids for transfusion, transplantation, insemination, or other administration to another person," without disclosing their status first. The code defines "intimate contact" as "the intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus."

[beegeez]

04:26 AM on 05/30/2012

What is the factual basis for believing this HIV+ student is sexually active or sexually irresponsibil?

[johnb123]

09:26 AM on 04/09/2012

Common Cold Risks for the HIV Positive

The common cold is highly contagious and usually stems from a viral infection. In people with healthy immune systems, symptoms of the cold will dissipate within a week as the immune system fights the virus. Depending on the advancement of HIV on the immune system, those who are HIV positive might develop bacterial infections from a chronic cold. These infections could include pneumonia, or an infection in the lungs, and bronchitis, or the infection of the main breathing tube.

[CBinKY]

11:30 AM on 04/11/2012

And? Advanced HIV makes all illnesses a risk.
Trying to frame it as protecting the child, when it is ALREADY going to be exposed to germs IN REAL LIFE, and at public school makes this a non-issue.

[HudsonSpeaks]

06:11 PM on 04/25/2012

johnb123, can you clarify your position? An earlier post by you said that you would pull your child out if another child had HIV, which would imply you want to protect the NON-HIV students from the risk of infection. In this post about the common cold, you are implying that you are protecting the HIV+ child from illness. Wondering which you find the compelling factor.

For the former, you have the right to pull your child from a school if you think they are at risk, even if most doctors would tell you the risk is minimal, and your child has a greater chance of being hit by lightning than contracting HIV from that child.

For the latter, the idea of keeping HIV+ people at home and away from others "for their own good" is not only a chilling idea, but ignores their right to assume their own personal risk.

At any rate, yes, HIV+ people have to make adjustments to their life based on their illness, but I don't think being barred from school is one of those.

[campcranston]

09:24 AM on 04/09/2012

Bringing ignorant politics down on the head of a child. This is ridiculous, it's a good thing Hershey's chocolate is pretty much bottom of the barrel, so I won't be missing much when I stop buying it. It's been more than 20 years and people STILL don't understand how AIDS spreads, this boy poses virtually no risk to the other students. I hope his parents can find a less backwards school to send him to.

[intellifran]

10:03 AM on 04/09/2012

I would agree if this school wasn't a boarding school. Schools like that practically invite sexual activity. You have pubecent teenagers living among each other. It's inevitable. Also, let's say he tells his potential partner he's inflicted, what do you think would happen to him when other kids get wind? Don't you think that would cause bullying? It's sad he has to learn how his disease impacts his life at such a young age, but he will eventually learn about it when he tries to have an intimate relationship.

[Allonsey65]

02:13 PM on 04/09/2012

Why are we talking about this kid like he doesn't have a brain in his head? I'm sure that if he chose to sleep with another student, he'd use protection. Actually, even if he didn't have HIV, I'm sure he'd use protection. Because who wants an accidental pregnancy at that age?

As for the other kids bullying him if they knew he had HIV--no, I don't see that happening. I see his condition being a problem more for hysterical adults who are working with outdated preconceptions and prejudices about HIV/AIDS that are simply untrue. I don't see kids doing that.

[archarabia]

09:09 AM on 04/09/2012

And I guess the Catch-22 here is: how would you feel if your child went to school with this boy? How would you feel if your child had this disease and was being denied admission? Also, does this mean the school expels anyone who contracts HIV during their time at the school, either on- or off-campus?

[johnb123]

09:23 AM on 04/09/2012

If I had a child with HIV I would do home schooling of find another way.....I would not push his HIV status on others. We would learn to deal with it.

[PCPrincess]

10:56 AM on 04/09/2012

It's impossible to push an HIV status on others. Just as impossible as it is to push diabetes on others. Fear breeds intolerance.

[traceymarie]

11:23 AM on 04/09/2012

what a sad and chilling comment, to think you have children is an abomination

[cjminott]

05:07 PM on 04/11/2012

How would I feel if my child went to school with this boy?

I would feel they should not engage in sexual activity until they're old enough, but if they must they should wear a condom.

Oh....that's right...that's how any intelligent parent would feel anyway.

I don't see the catch-22.

[archarabia]

09:03 AM on 04/09/2012

How did the school find out he had this disease? It's Augusta all over again. Stop defending arcane policies in the name of "it's a private club/school". There was a time when such places could legally deny admission to Blacks, Irish, Jews, women, etc. I don't think their behavior is defensible, private school or not.

[FaceTheTruth00]

09:16 AM on 04/09/2012

If you read the other HuffPo article, the mother of the boy asked her son's caseworker to contact the school to make sure his HIV status would not be an issue, prior to filling out an application.

So, it seems as though the mother brought his status to the school's attention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/milton-hershey-school-fac_n_1123528.html

It's on page 4, number 20 of the complaint filed.

[Basil08]

09:34 AM on 04/09/2012

And as usual, no good deed goes unpunished :(

[KIVPossum]

08:58 AM on 04/09/2012

>>>For a 14-year-old to hear that he's danger, he's a threat, that has really been hard for him," Goldfein said

At 14 it is high time someone sit him down and talk to him and make him understand the prejudice of some people as well as instruct him how to be safe in intimate contact with others

[beegeez]

04:35 AM on 05/30/2012

Yes, teach him about ignorance and prejudice and Christian Republicans.

[plzchuteme]

08:57 AM on 04/09/2012

I'm pretty sure this is not what "ol' man Hershey," had in mind when he set up the school.

[KIVPossum]

08:54 AM on 04/09/2012

Boycott this. Boycott that. Boycott anything that remotely offends.

It is to the point you need a spreadsheet to keep up with the boycotts

[Isapisa]

08:56 AM on 04/09/2012

haha, boycott and ocupy the two favorite words of the left!

[duncansdad]

09:05 AM on 04/09/2012

The right does plenty of boycotting; Ellen, Starbucks, Disneyworld, etc., etc. The only difference is that the right's botcotts don't work!

[campcranston]

09:25 AM on 04/09/2012

Yes. Hit the offenders in their wallets and change will happen. It's an american tradition. Not left, or right.

[jesternhell]

08:54 AM on 04/09/2012

aids is covered under the americans with disabilities act?

[PCPrincess]

10:57 AM on 04/09/2012

You could have just as easily found out, but you asked here instead? What are you really trying to say?

[jesternhell]

10:30 AM on 04/10/2012

seems that everyone has some form of disability so that everyone is covered under the act huh.

[traceymarie]

11:28 AM on 04/09/2012

yes, same as hemophiliacs, and other physically dibilitaing diseases