When President Bush appointed Scott Evertz, an openly gay man, to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy, the gay and lesbian community reacted with a collective nod of approval.
But I hope the support wasn't premature.
There's no doubt it's good for the community to have openly gay and lesbian people filling as many political posts possible, even in—or maybe especially in—a conservative Republican administration. And make no mistake: Despite George W. Bush's self-appointed label as a "compassionate conservative," and all the smiling and dancing and nice-nice he makes about what he calls "inclusion," he and his administration are pretty hard core conservatives. Indeed, The New York Times recently evaluated his cabinet-level appointments and declared him to the right of Ronald Reagan on the conserv-o-meter.
Having an openly gay person in such a conservative administration is, on its own, a sign of political progress for the gay and lesbian community.
However, the qualities most needed by the person who fills the position of the nation's highest official AIDS advisor can't be measured by sexual orientation.
As we evaluate Mr. Evertz, now and in the future as our "AIDS czar," we mustn't let the fact that he is gay distract us, one way or the other.
Naturally, the religious right is incredibly distracted by the fact that Mr. Evertz is gay. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say Mr. Evertz's sexual orientation has given the opposition focus, rather than distraction.
Religious right and conservative organizations immediately denounced Mr. Evertz's appointment, and have officially mounted a crusade they contend is aimed at having Evertz resign or be replaced. Clearly, they are unhappy about an openly gay person in the Bush administration. It's likely, however, that these groups are less concerned with the actual replacement of Evertz than they are with their own political clout. Attacking Evertz is their way of sending a message to George W. Bush that he shouldn't do this again.
The fact that Bush finally appointed an openly gay person, combined with the vociferous reaction from the right, has caused gay and lesbian leaders and organizations to rally behind Mr. Evertz.
But we need to be careful that our joy about an openly gay man in the administration doesn't eclipse the more important questions and concerns we need to be asking about the person who is our nation's top AIDS adviser.
We are now two decades into AIDS, and our collective experience tells us there are a few solid basics that work when combating the disease. The first is condoms. The second is AIDS education. Another is that without concurrently confronting the prejudice of homophobia, AIDS prevention efforts will be stalled, if not doomed.
In studying Mr. Evertz's history and recent remarks, there are some positive indicators. Perhaps the most radical is his endorsement of needle-exchange programs. "We have needle exchange in Wisconsin and it's working," Evertz told USA Today.
Another good sign: In response to recent reports that AIDS is rampant among Black gay men, Mr. Evertz has said it would be important to address the stigma of homosexuality in minority communities in order to battle the disease there.
But there are some reasons to be cautious about Mr. Evertz's appointment as well.
One is on the issue of condoms—the single most important tool in fighting AIDS, period. Mr. Evertz is a conservative Roman Catholic. Though Mr. Evertz has expressed his own belief that condom use is appropriate, his statements on this vital matter have been shockingly demure. For example, this is how he justified his position to one newspaper that asked him about condoms vs. teaching abstinence: "The Roman Catholic bishops said a few years back that, in the interest of saving human life, it may not be inappropriate to discuss condom use."
This wishy-washy statement from the national leader on AIDS? Are we about to go so far back into the dark ages that, at a federal level, we are going to actually have to debate condom use? That would be tragic.
Mr. Evertz has also conceded that while he believes in things like condom use, AIDS education in schools, and needle exchange, he knows that President Bush differs sharply from him on many matters. It remains to be seen just how much of a champion he will be for AIDS in the face of his boss's backwards notions. Chillingly, when asked about how he would handle the challenge presented by the rift in his beliefs compared to the administration's, he told USA Today, "I'm going to avoid commenting on what I think the Bush administration should do."
Evertz may be able to avoid the tough questions for the moment. But he won't be able to do so for long.
It's too early to tell how Mr. Evertz will measure up to the incredible challenge of his office in the new administration. To be fair, it's a tough position to be in, and I wish him the best of luck.
But more important than Mr. Evertz's personal career are the concrete actions he takes—or avoids—as the nation's AIDS adviser.
Those of us in the gay and lesbian community mustn't let him off the hook because he is working in a conservative administration or simply because he is "one of us."
MubarakDah@aol.com
