Barring Students, Employees Not Easy : AIDS Policy Has School Board in a Bind

Having voted against allowing AIDS victims in San Diego schools, the city school board on Tuesday turned to the question of how to keep them out--and discovered a whole new set of slippery questions.

For example, how could they exclude employees with the fatal acquired immune deficiency syndrome? Having AIDS is not grounds for firing an employee, paid leave could be prohibitively expensive, and the AIDS virus test cannot be used as a condition of employment.

Another question is how the board could exclude infected students who didn’t admit to having AIDS. The district has no sure way of identifying them, and health officials are barred from disclosing cases unless the patient or family agrees.

The trustees are to vote Oct. 22 on a proposal to educate AIDS students at home--if and when they are identified. But Supt. Tom Payzant said Tuesday that he knows of no way to exclude employees, and he urged the board to reconsider last week’s vote as it relates to employees.

Last week, the board narrowly rejected health officials’ and Payzant’s recommendations and voted against allowing AIDS patients in the schools. Three trustees said the disease is not fully understood and asked Payzant to prepare a policy to exclude victims.

Under the new policy, Payzant said, students with AIDS would be taught in their homes in the same way that seriously ill children are currently taught--by a teacher who would either visit them or communicate by telephone.

But he said he and his staff could find no such alternative proposal to exclude employees. He said legal constraints and statutory requirements appear to make that impossible.

He urged the board to reconsider his first proposal and admit employees on a case-by-case basis. He also urged it to set up a task force to promote educational programs on AIDS, keep abreast of scientific findings and ensure that school services reflect the latest knowledge.

Discussing employees, trustees acknowledged that no employee could be fired for having AIDS. A medical retirement would have to be decided by the public employees’ retirement system and would require a doctor’s finding of a disability, the board’s lawyer said.

“It’s very clear that we cannot require an employee to take the test,” attorney Tina Dyer said, referring to an antibody test that can detect past exposure to the virus. Furthermore, she said, the testing lab is barred from revealing the results to an employer.

Even transferring an employee to a job that involves less contact with other people could be problematical, Payzant said. A comparable job might not exist, and the employees’ unions might object.

As for students, the trustees wondered what to do about unacknowledged cases.

Trustee John Witt suggested appealing to the state Legislature to allow “some kind of AIDS clearance test.” However, medical authorities say the antibody test is not necessarily reliable, and many people found to have been exposed to the virus have not contracted the disease.

Trustee Kay Davis suggested appealing to the Legislature to allow state and county health officials to disclose reported cases of AIDS to school officials. Others wondered what the district would do to investigate suspected or rumored cases.

Payzant cautioned the board against targeting any group, such as hemophiliacs or homosexuals, for suspicion. Later, he pointed out that the district’s medical consultants had warned that an exclusion policy could create such a hunt.

AIDS, believed to be fatal in all cases, results from a virus that destroys its victims’ ability to fight off infection. Transmitted through sexual contact and blood products, it has mostly affected homosexual and bisexual men, and recipients of infected blood products.

There are currently no reported cases of AIDS within the San Diego city school system.