Breakdown of Debate Topic #1:
"At residential colleges like Bucknell students should be informed if one of their roommates is HIV+. That means that the university should provide this information if the affected individual does not do so"
(Revised October 7, 2002)

Recognize that each topic we use for debates in Sociology 130 is complicated. It has valid arguments for both sides. To succeed in debates, students must understand both sides of the argument. You do not succeed simply by stating your opinion intensely and dramatically. You need to understand that the other side has strong arguments and good data. They will find weaknesses in your position and bring out information and arguments that hurt your point of view. Only if you can similarly attack the other side and only if you appreciate the difficulties of the argument for your side and figure out how to make your case strongly will you win the debate.

The first step in building a strong argument is to break down your topic. You need to lay out the pieces of information and the points of argument that people need to hear in order to understand what is going on, to know what information is significant, and to understand the several arguments or points of view that make your position a strong one. At the same time, you need to know the information the opposing side will use to inform the audience, give data to support their case, and to make various points to make their position convincing and believable.

One of the first things you need to do with your team is to break down your topic so you can understand what will go into the argument. Some of the most important avenues of argument will only become visible to you after you have done some research. At the same time, you can only begin researching your topic in depth if you have broken it down into subareas. Only then can you give different research assignments for your team members, avoid duplication of effort, and go deeply into your topic. If you stay skimming the surface your debate project will not be successful.

We prepared the following breakdowns for the debate topics we used in Sociology 130 for the Spring, 2000, semester. We hope they will provide you with a guide for breaking down your topic this semester.

Debate Question #1: "At residential colleges like Bucknell students should be informed if one of their roommates is HIV+. That means that the university should provide this information if the affected individual does not do so"

On this question there is a real imbalance in the information that you'll find on the topic for the con side as opposed to the pro side. There is a lot of information about the importance of confidentiality for those affected by HIV and the groups lobbying for the rights of those with HIV have been aggressive about arguing this position. You ought to look at web sites of groups like the Lambda Legal Defense fund and ACT -UP.

The argument for confidentiality partly has to do with the stigma attached to HIV and the intense discrimination people encounter when their status is made public. We have very well known examples like that of Ryan White and the story told in the film Philadelphia. Discrimination is common and generally has little to do with the actual dangers to others presented by someone with HIV disease. Arguing the con side, I would be sure to have some graphic examples ready to make clear the significance of the stigma and discrimination effects.

Related to this, it is important to get information about how difficult it is to maintain confidentiality where HIV is concerned. People arguing the pro side on this kind of issue tend to argue that it is illegal for people like medical professionals to leak information about HIV status. I don't know what studies have been done but I know from personal experience that this information has been routinely leaked by medical professionals. It would be worthwhile to get information about what medical records are, how they are stored, who has access to them, what information is in insurance records, and how accessible this information is to people other than an individual's personal physician. I expect that in the last couple of years controls have been tightened. But because there is great significance for health care providers to having this information people have not always used medical records responsibly.

There is an important argument here about the importance of prevention, about the need for people to learn their HIV status, and for them to be positive about protecting the safety of others. The argument has been that if HIV status is leaked, people will not get the information and then they will be dangerous to others. Related to that, if people seek their HIV status and then are a target of bigoted behavior, they are likely then to act in unsafe ways. Confidentiality and respect are essential if we are to build a culture of safe sex and behavior.

An important part of this discussion is what risks are presented to those who have close relations with those affected by HIV. Reality is that this disease is hard to catch, so people living in intimate contact with those infected with HIV are not going to get the disease UNLESS they are sharing bodily fluids.
It's important to explain how HIV is transmitted and to explain the fragility of the virus and the effectiveness of minimal safety precautions. Related here one might present information about other infectious diseases that are around and that are easy to transmit, like hepatitis B or drug resistant STDs or drug resistant TB. What policies exist to inform roommates about these health conditions? Why focus on HIV?

It would be important to talk to the people at Bucknell in charge of this policy to find out what they think on this issue: psych counseling; Dr. Stechschulte; the housing office; Dean Ferraro; the academic deans; the athletic director.

The argument for the pro side gains its strength from two things: analogies to related situations and appeals to the sentiments of students in class. Legal and public health arguments may favor confidentiality but realistically most Bucknell students would be upset to know that their roommate is HIV+. It is important to put the focus on why students would be upset and to make those feelings seem prudent rather than hysterical.

One thing to look into is what law suits have been filed where roommates were hurt by some personal quality of their roommate about which they were not informed. There is at least one suit involving the roommate of someone with HIV, so you want to find that suit. There certainly are other suits as well related to mental illness, other infectious diseases, histories of criminality or addiction, or suicidal inclinations. What are the rationales for preserving privacy and what effective claims are made about the right to know?

It is important to do a catalog of personal situations that arise with roommates that might put you at risk. People cut themselves and blood is around. People get drunk or sick and throw up. People borrow each other's personal equipment---razors, for example. Are these risky for a noninfected roommate?
Pay attention to situations where people have challenged the right of HIV+ individuals to remain anonymous. One important setting is where athletic competition is involved. We both have clear regulations about athletes having to leave the field of play when they are bleeding and athletes who will not play with others who are HIV+. You will want to look at what people have said to defend not playing with HIV+ infected athletes to see if they are being convincing or just worry warts. Look at the regulations controlling athletes, try to determine if they make sense, and then ask why those same guidelines and protections would not apply to other settings where blood might put others at risk.

It is important to think about what happens when information is shared with roommates. It is important to think about whether confidentiality CAN be maintained between roommates, so that if you say a roommate should be told how can you be sure that the roommate will not pass on the information. People arguing for this position have to think up plans to create safeguards. Think about how we pre-screen for avoiding roommates who drink or play loud music.

Think also about the emotional consequences of finding out about your roommate's HIV status. This can cut either way. If you are told will that be upsetting to you? Alternatively, if you are not told and find out later on how will that affect you? I think the compelling argument here is that aside from the physiological risk of having an HIV+ roommate there may well be other consequences and it probably is a good idea for roommates to know what they are getting into. Many students are very upset when they encounter severe illness and death and since rooming is an intimate situation this may disrupt studies and other things.

We also may want to know whether HIV+ individuals might not have special illness or health problems that both would require roommates to help out and that might place roommates at risk. The idea is that the HIV+ person may get an infection that normal people would not get. However, when put in close proximity to the infection a healthy roommate may then pick up some rare infection.