#Ian-Bradley Perrin | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dakrolak · 7 years

Text

LET THE RECORD SHOW

Losing the True Story of AIDS

By Sarah Schulman June 2017

I could stand here and tell you about friends of mine who are lost. But I would be abdicating my responsibility as a long-term witness to the AIDS calamity if I focused on Stan Leventhal or Asotto Saint today. As a journalist and novelist who has covered the entirety of the AIDS crisis, and (unlike many people who covered AIDS from the beginning, I am still alive) I have to say honestly that the thing we are really losing is an accurate HISTORY of AIDS, and consequentially, we are losing an accurate assessment of where we are today. The AIDS Story has been distorted from the beginning, in part because of the chaos of figuring out what the hell was going on, in part because of bias, but now these distortions are being entrenched. I want to take this time to give some very key examples.

First, we have a false origin story. Most people who know anything trace the beginning of AIDS to that New York Times article on July 4th weekend, 1981, reporting cases of what they called “Gay Cancer” in San Francisco. I think we now know enough to understand that this highly significant marker only recorded the moment when a long standing epidemic finally reached a critical mass of gay men who had access to high quality doctors who had the time and ability to actually notice and conceptualize their condition. And so, July 4, 1981 is a monument to the cruelty of the American health care system.

There are estimates that by 1981 there were already 200,000 people in the United States who were infected with HIV. And that means that many people had already died, and been dying for a long time. And others observed their deaths. So who were they? In his 1990 book The History of AIDS by Merko Gremek, he cites a study in the 1940’s that identified a group of sailors who died of a mysterious lung disease. The enterprising doctor cultured and saved their lung cells, which were identified in the 1980’s as PCP, or AIDS related pneumonia. The men also were noted to have had “anal trauma”, which because of homophobia was a euphemism for anal sex.

In the ACT UP Oral History Project, Jim Hubbard and I interviewed 187 surviving members of ACT UP New York over seventeen years. In my interview with Betty Williams, a straight Quaker who was in ACT–Up, she reflects on her work with homeless people in the 1960’s and 70’s and recalls them using two terms to identify fatal illnesses affecting homeless people: “Junkie pneumonia” which we now understand also to be PCP, killing injection drug users, poor gay men and others who were HIV infected before anyone knew what HIV was, and “the dwindles” which we now understand to have been Wasting Syndrome, a significant cause of AIDS death. So, in the 1960’s and 70’s, homeless people observed and named AIDS related conditions, but they were so separated from adequate health care in our brutal and unjust, stratified class system, that no one else noticed.

This week I heard a piece on WNYC promoting a new book about Jeffrey Shmaltz, a gay writer at the New York Times who died of AIDS. The interview did not mention that the New York Times was a major force in maintaining social indifference and neglect towards people with AIDS, contributing to the expansion of the epidemic world-wide. The interview did not mention that there were a number of closeted gay men and women at the Times who turned their backs on the gay community and on people with AIDS for years, despite our desperate pleas. It did not mention that ACT UP called them “The New York CRIMES”, that when they got their first fax machine, we faxed them a mile of black paper because of their criminal refusal to cover AIDS.

LET THE RECORD SHOW!

That homophobia at the New York Times meant that out of the closet journalists who wanted to tell the truth about what was happening to our community could not work at the highest levels of our profession. That out of the closet artists who made work about the reality of our lives under the epidemic, could not get their work understood or often even acknowledged, and demonstrations and zaps and experiences of people with AIDS were rarely even mentioned at the New York Crimes.

On May 21, 1990, ACT UP organized a huge and elaborate action at the National Institute of Health, called STORM THE NIH, focused on insisting that people with AIDS be allowed on governmental boards controlling treatment development and testing. Because our people were literally NOT ALLOWED IN THE BUILDING, folks with AIDS had to stand outside the gates, including many very sick people some of whom were hauled away by police wearing yellow rubber gloves, and these brave people were then arrested.

Seventeen years later, Jim Hubbard and I were invited to the NIH, National Library of Medicine to present the beginnings of the ACT UP Oral History Project. We said that the last time we had been there, we were on the other side of the gate. A woman raised her hand and told us that she was the NIH librarian, and that after demonstrators were taken away in 1990, she went outside and collected some of the left-over signs for the Institute’s archive. And then she made the bone-chilling statement that “We here at the NIH are so grateful that Dr Fauci had the insight to understand that everyone deserved a place at the table.” Jim and I were filled with disbelief. We explained to her and the rest of the NIH staff in attendance that our dead friends fought and struggled until the day they died to FORCE the NIH, AGAINST THEIR WILL, to include people with AIDS as experts on their own disease.

LET THE RECORD SHOW.

And when we look at the history of AIDS film and AIDS Theater, we see large-scale mis-representations and inventions embedded in the most rewarded and iconic works. Early on, the most highly praised works about AIDS told a false story of gay people being alone and abandoned by each other, without community or political organization, dependent on benevolent straight people to rescue them. For example, the Oscar winning film PHILADELPHIA, told the story of a gay man with AIDS (Tom Hanks) who needed a lawyer, so he went to a homophobic straight lawyer (Denzel Washington). Why didn’t he go to a gay lawyer? Most people with AIDS were defended by gay and lesbian or left-wing lawyers. The actual history is that people with AIDS were NOT defended by homophobic straight lawyers.

LET THE RECORD SHOW.

But in the Oscar winning movie PHILADELPHIA there is no political gay community in existence for this man with AIDS to turn to. This is a completely false rendition designed to position homophobic straight people as the heroes of AIDS because they HEROICALLY overcome their prejudices to protect the alone gay man.

At the same time there were accurate depictions of upper-class white gay men like The Normal Heart or Longtime Companion that did tell true stories of race and class-based white gay male communities heroically struggling to force the government to act, while they faced mass death. But the problem is not with these stories themselves, but that they became exclusively emblematic of an epidemic, that they only partially represented, while the stories of poor people, of women with HIV, or people of color, of children with HIV were relegated to marginalized venues like underground and community newspapers, or projects like Alexandra Juhasz and Juanita Muhammed’s videos with women of color with AIDS (now showing at The Museum of the City of New York, thirty years after their creation) or Jean Carlomusto and Gregg Bordowitz’s Cable series “Surviving and Thriving With AIDS” for GMHC in the 1980’s.

What is particularly interesting about, for example, Larry Kramer’s THE NORMAL HEART, is that while it enjoyed a very successful run and revival off-Broadway at The Public Theater, it could not move to Broadway or HBO until decades after its creation because corporate entertainment was not ready for a white GAY man to be the hero of AIDS until the epicenter of the epidemic seemed to have passed.

LET THE RECORD SHOW.

And while white gay men suffered, were abandoned by their society and abandoned by their families, and died because of the criminal indifference and neglect by the US government, Big Pharma, The Entertainment Industry, and – yes- The New York Crimes- some of those who survived have also contributed mightily to the creation of a false history because they are the only sectors of the community of people with HIV/AIDS who have a voice at the levels of power. We have been subjected to claims by people like Andrew Sullivan, who in 1999 announced “The End of AIDS,” because his friends had good insurance and could get medication. Yet reporters like Black lesbian hero

Linda Villarosa

, have documented the ongoing crisis for Black women and Black gay and bisexual men over decades. In a 2004, five years after Sullivan claimed “The End of AIDS” Villarosa wrote a two part series for the New York Times showing that the over-incarceration of Black men by white America, made Black women who wanted to have sex with Black men, more vulnerable to the virus because they faced a smaller partner pool with higher rates of infection.

For decades AIDS prevention organizations that are funded and thereby ultimately controlled by the US government and white corporations, have organized their prevention information on the false assumption that Black men who have sex with men have higher HIV rates because they don’t have safe sex, but this was revealed to be untrue when in 2015, Greg Millet (Obama’s senior policy advisor on AIDS) released a study showing that Black men are 3 times more likely than white men to have safe sex, but that – like Black women- if they want Black partners, their chances of encountering someone who is already positive are so much greater, that their risk for infection is way higher than whites. Infection rates caused by racist incarceration and racist deprivation of health care for the poor, were blamed on racist concepts of Black irresponsibility.

Just two weeks ago, Linda Villarosa published a MUST READ cover story in the Sunday Times magazine showing that in the US South, the abandonment of Black gay men is so severe, that they have HIV rates in 2017 that are higher than those of any country in the world, and yet white gay men are still producing and rewarding work that tells us that “we” as a nation have “Survived A Plague”

LET THE RECORD SHOW.

And these distortions are evident, even in New York City. Just last week I was told by a social worker that she has seen Juvenile HIV deaths THIS YEAR among her client base but that some of these statistics are hidden under co-morbidity because her clients, who are homeless, may have died of other illnesses that became untreatable because of their advanced HIV disease. In New York City TODAY, half of HIV deaths are diagnosed in the emergency room because our people do not have health care. And a nurse told me last week that people with HIV dementia are being classified under “psychiatric” diagnosis, again obscuring the statistics for the poor.

And finally, what about the New York Crimes? Yes they now publish articles on gay people, gay weddings, gay parenthood. Yes, they do allow writers like Villarosa to publish their pathbreaking research. But what about their on-going coverage? Columbia graduate student Ian Bradley-Perrin did an analytical survey of the Times HIV coverage in the last four years. Any of you who know anything about how stories get into the media know that most features have advanced corporate Public Relations machinery, behind-the-scenes, propelling specific stories and perspectives into print. Almost every profile of an individual, major review of a cultural work, or coverage of a trend is the product of an elaborate backstage campaign that is privately funded. So a pharmaceutical company like Gilead would have a better chance of being covered than, for example, the global trend of HIV criminalization.

Perrin found that since 2013, the Times has had 0 articles on hiv criminalization, 0 articles on the fact that half of transsexual women are HIV positive, 0 articles on adults living today who were born HIV positive 0 articles on the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose parents died of AIDS, 1 article on the specific experience of long-term survivors 3 articles on hiv and opioids, 7 articles on African Americans and HIV, and 28 articles on Prep.

What we are losing is the true history of AIDS, and for this reason, we are losing our contemporary reality.

LET THE RECORD SHOW.

Test via:

“LET THE RECORD SHOW”

Artwork by Gran Fury

0 notes

mydozoleye · 8 years

Photo

Vincent Chevalier & Ian Bradley-Perrin

1 note · View note

econobitch · 7 years

Link

THE GOP TAX PLAN WILL MAKE GRADUATE EDUCATION AFFORDABLE ONLY FOR THE WEALTHY. Every year, graduate students brace for another round of “death by a thousand cuts”—a cycle of funding cuts and fee hikes that has been battering higher education for years now. But the latest Republican tax plan promises death by a thousand deductions too, by eliminating a long-standing tuition exemption for higher education. Students were previously entitled to a modest $2,000 tax credit to offset the cost of tuition, and stripping the deduction could affect roughly 145,000 graduate students and 27,000 undergraduates nationwide. The cut could therefore have a devastating impact on graduate students already struggling with economic instability. Though the credit barely dents a graduate program that typically costs about $16,000 to $30,000 per year, it could drive many grad students, most of whom earn less than $20,000, deeper into poverty and debt. In addition to higher taxes, graduate students might soon face an even worse financial blow from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). With a new Republican majority, the judicial panel is now poised to strip away graduate workers’ union rights by overturning a recent ruling enabling students at private universities to organize and collectively bargain as instructors and researchers. Altogether, Trump’s multi-pronged economic assault will hit scholars in training with slashed incomes and lost labor rights, raising the cost and stress of higher education, while the wealthy bank on more tax breaks. Graduate workers rallied last week on the campuses of Harvard, Columbia, Boston College, Boston University, and Northeastern University to protest the conservative education agenda on two fronts: opposing the tax hike and demanding their right to organize. Ian Bradley Perrin, a doctoral history student and part of the bargaining committee of the Graduate Workers Union at Columbia, which just won a multiyear battle to unionize, recalls the financial desperation that drove him to join the union. When he began studying and teaching with his program, a bureaucratic botch delayed his wage payments for months, leaving him impoverished, on his own as an international student, and “relying on the kindness of friends” to survive. “For me, it became clear that a union would be a form of recourse that I would have” that could help him obtain the wages he was owed, he said. If his $25,000-a-year income gets slashed further by the loss of the tuition deduction, he added, “I am barely making ends meet as a graduate student anyway…. The idea that I would have to take tax on the tuition coverage by my school is kind of unthinkable to me…. and it wouldn’t be affordable for most of the other grad students that I know. It’s a huge disincentive to go into higher education.” Julie Kushner, director of United Auto Workers Region 9A, which represents graduate-student workers at Columbia and other private universities, said the tuition exemption was vital for building a more economically inclusive academic community. Cutting the exemption represents “just one more attack on our universities and working people more generally.”

0 notes

caveartfair · 7 years

Text

Why Graduate Students Are Worried about the Republican Tax Plan

Photo by Mikael Kristenson.

The Republican tax plan currently moving through Congress could have potentially devastating effects on an unexpected group: graduate students.

Under the plan approved Thursday by the House Committee on Ways and Means, graduate students would be taxed on the tuition waivers they currently receive from universities in exchange for work like assisting professors or doing research. The House proposal would result in Ph.D. students essentially paying income tax on the sticker price of their education, a cost intended to be fully covered by their institution, for most students.

The proposal, along with many other provisions of the House bill, has drawn fierce criticism from higher education groups. “The idea of taxing people on money they don’t get is absurd,” said Hunter O’Hanian, executive director of the College Art Association, who warns the House plan would upend humanities education in the United States.

Presently, only the cash stipend graduate students receive on top of the tuition waivers is taxed. Early estimates by graduate students have calculated that the change could, in some cases, amount to a 300% tax hike on a group that is already struggling to get by on earnings that often hover at around $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Some argue the added tax burden created by the House proposal would turn getting a Ph.D. into a luxury commodity.

“It really is the straw that will break the back of higher education,” said Ian Bradley-Perrin, a member of the Graduate Workers of Columbia union. A third-year Ph.D. student at the school, Perrin receives an annual wage from Columbia of $23,000, and a tuition waiver that covers the full annual $56,000 cost of his education. If the House plan becomes law, he would be taxed the same as someone earning $80,000. The increased tax burden might force him to drop out (and he is certainly not alone).

Whether a GOP tax bill does become law remains uncertain. But Ph.D. students have reason to be hopeful that even if a tax overhaul does reach the President’s desk, it might not be the House proposal. The Senate’s version of the tax bill, details of which were released Thursday, does not tax graduate tuition waivers and maintains several other deductions and credits aimed at students that would be cut by the House bill.

The Senate Finance Committee’s two-page summary of its proposal even includes a bullet point specifically noting that the plan “preserves additional important elements of the existing individual tax system, including [...] education relief for graduate students.”

For opponents of taxing graduate tuition waivers, it is a heartening development that suggests Senate Republicans have heard the vocal criticisms of the House plan. “I’m certainly feeling more optimistic now that the Senate bill has come out,” said Patrick Thomas, director of the University of Notre Dame Law School’s Tax Clinic.

But he cautions that the process of passing the tax bill is just beginning. If the House and Senate tax plans each pass their chambers as is, they will go through reconciliation, a legislative process in which the differences are worked out. After that, a final tax overhaul is put to a vote in both houses. What provisions that bill ultimately includes remains to be seen, and final passage is far from guaranteed.

“Like anything with this Congress and this administration, it’s wait and see,” said Thomas. “I’m not placing any bets.”

In the meantime, Bradley-Perrin says the Senate bill doesn’t have his union—which is engaged in a separate legal battle with Columbia’s administration for official recognition—resting easy. They’re opposed to the totality of the tax plan, which slashes taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and not only to the provisions that concern graduate students directly.

President Trump has predicted that he will sign the the tax overhaul before Christmas.

from Artsy News

#Artsy News

0 notes