Ed Koch and the Aids Crisis, Essay Example

Introduction

The death in 2013 of former New York Mayor Ed Koch sparked what may be termed a retrospective investigation, and one very much focused on two distinct elements: the emergence of the AIDS crisis in the late 1970s and Koch’s notorious refusal to identify himself as gay, despite strong public belief in this as a reality.  Consequently, an issue in place during the 1970s and 1980s has resurfaced, and intense criticism is leveled at Koch for having deliberately ignored, or at best minimally addressed, an epidemic, and because of his own concerns for his political life and standing.  Koch was and is for many gay men and women viewed as unconscionably cowardly, in that he betrayed “his own people” when need was greatest.  This view, however, is unjust because it attaches an ironic bias to gayness itself.  If Koch failed to respond to AIDS properly, it was a failure of a public official, and this is the crucial reality to comprehend.  To call into play the mayor’s own sexual orientation ignores the staggering dimensions of the crisis at the time, failures of response elsewhere, and it expresses the invalid belief that any official’s personal orientation obligates greater response.

Circumstances of the Era

It is perhaps ironic that Ed Koch, strongly suspected of hiding his gay sexuality, should have been elected as mayor in 1977, for this was as revolutionary a time and place for gay activity unlike any other.  In 1969 the Stonewall riots, in which gays actively resisted police harassment and were unconcerned about public exposure, generated a new and radical sense of homosexuality in the city as a civil rights movement.  By the late 1970s, this new feeling had translated into what is acknowledged as a virtual sexual liberation in the truest sense of the term.  New York City had moved from the political impetus of the riots in ways promoting gay sex everywhere.  With the new sense of freedom from police persecution came vast numbers of bars, bathhouses, and outdoor spaces in which gay sex was rampant and unprotected.  From Harlem to the downtown piers, anonymous gay sex was the order of the day, and very much perceived as linked to social and political freedom (Mahler 128).  For many gays in New York City, it may be reasonably argued that civil rights had translated into a defiant insistence on sexual promiscuity.

Not unexpectedly, it was not long before incidents of sexually transmitted diseases significantly increased, as the first “gay cancer” was being identified.  By 1981, AIDS was known, and the ensuing responses reflected the fear inevitable when an unknown and fatal illness strikes seemingly inexplicably.  Adding to the impact was, of course, the majority of victims as gay, just as it was widely felt that homosexual promiscuity had to some extent generated this breakdown in the body’s immune system (Harden, Fauci  15).  The stage was set for an unprecedented crisis in which a minority population was dying, and was also perceived by many to be dying due to sexual excesses notoriously associated with that population. The ensuing years would see a rise in homophobic public feeling and, most importantly, what has been universally recognized as official neglect to address the disease as such; rather, in that gays and drug users were identified as the likely victims, slowness of response by medical and governmental agencies was seen as evidence of an utter disregard, if not contempt, for the city’s gay population.

The Koch Factor

Just as gay sexuality was exploding in the city in the late 1970s, Ed Koch became mayor.  From the start, Koch’s own sexuality was questioned, as was his reliance upon Bess Myerson as his “companion.”  The relationship was jeered at openly as a sham, and a pretense at heterosexuality enacted solely for political purposes (Humm).  Koch’s popularity as mayor otherwise notwithstanding, the reality also remains that his record on addressing the AIDS crisis is at best weak, and at worst unaccountably negligent.  As the disease became more evident, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis was unable to meet with the mayor for nearly two years.  The gay community in the city, not yet well organized, was compelled to spearhead efforts at education and care as Koch downplayed the entire scenario or ignored it completely, a reaction all the more surprising given Koch’s early support for gay rights (Humm).  Even Koch’s creation of the Office of Gay and Lesbian Health Concerns was largely viewed as a reaction, not to the gay crisis, but to increasing concerns regarding the disease spreading into mainly heterosexual populations (Bellafante).  In essence, and year after year, Ed Koch denied his official responsibility in addressing an issue that was drastically impacting the city.

There are extenuating circumstances, certainly.  For example, it was argued that shutting down the gay bathhouses would constitute a violation of civil liberties.  Then, a number of AIDS medical groups did not choose to engage with politicians at all, and were determined to treat the epidemic as solely a health issue (Bellafante).  To some extent, then, Koch is absolved of complete blame.  Nonetheless, the nature of the crisis was such that his minimal involvement translated to unjustifiable neglect of duty, and this view has been amplified since his death.

Widespread feeling in the gay community openly condemns him as a closeted gay mayor who turned his back on the crisis because he feared exposure.  Larry Kramer, playwright and a founder of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, expresses the sense of betrayal neatly: “Edward Koch was…a murderer of his very own people” (Humm).  In a very real sense, Ed Koch’s legacy as mayor is irredeemably stamped with this condemnation.

A Wider Perspective

As noted, Mayor Koch’s response to the AIDS crisis erupting at the time was irrefutably dismal.  A reasonable view, however, demands that other realities of the era be recognized as well, and they reflect a neglect which, if not excusing Koch, at least lessens the severity of his inaction.  To begin with, The New York Times, powerful medium of the city and the world, ignored the AIDS epidemic completely in 1981 and 1982, after publishing only one brief article on it.  Then, President Reagan’s response to AIDS was virtually non-existent, a reality emphasized all the more by the administration’s frantic reaction to Legionnaire’s Disease five years earlier, which affected only a handful of people (Humm).  None of this redeems Koch, but it must be asked: why should a mayor be so vilified when the highest official in the nation is unwilling to address a disease killing thousands?

Then, and perhaps more importantly, there is the actual basis for the anger generated by Koch’s inaction.  The dominant view was and is that a mayor who is gay, no matter what pretenses he effects for the public to the contrary, is more obligated to focus on gay concerns.  This is an expectation that actually defies ethics and innate official responsibility, because it promotes a bias.  That the population is marginalized is beside the point; what matters is that any more overt attention to an issue made by an elected official to address a matter in which he is personally invested is an affront to correct conduct.  It opens the door, in fact, for criticism from other populations because any action based on the personal aspect is inherently suspect.  Certainly, Koch was neglectful, and the repercussions were profound.  At the same time, it is unconscionable to accuse him of anything more than a failure to respond as an official; citing Koch as a “traitor” to his own people adds an unjust and irrelevant aspect to the assessment.

Conclusion

The AIDS crisis of the later decades of the 20^th century represents an extraordinary and troubling event.  Gay freedom had translated into gay promiscuity in New York City, gay men were dying of a sexually-transmitted and unknown disease, and a mayor widely believed to be gay largely ignored the reality of it.  Consequently, Ed Koch is branded as having turned his back on the population for whom he should have been most concerned.  The view is understandable, but ultimately untenable.  Ed Koch failed to react to AIDS properly, this was an inexcusable failure of a public official, and that is the crucial reality to comprehend.  To call into play the mayor’s own sexual orientation ignores the immense dimensions of the crisis at the time, equally dramatic failures of response elsewhere, and it asserts the invalid belief that an elected official’s sexual orientation obligates greater response.

Works Cited

Bellafante, G.  “Judging Mayor Koch’s AIDS Record, Whispers Aside.”  The New York Times. 18 Jan. 2013.  Web.  <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/nyregion/judging-mayor-kochs-aids-record-without-the-whispers.html?_r=2&>

Harden, V. A., & Fauci, A.  AIDS at 30: A History.  Washington: Potomac Books, 2012.  Print.

Humm, A.  “Ed Koch: 12 Years as Mayor, a Lifetime in the Closet.”  Gay City News.  13 Feb. 2013. Web.  <http://gaycitynews.com/ed-koch-12-years-as-mayor-a-lifetime-in-the-     closet/>

Mahler, J.  Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning: 1977, Baseball, Politics, and the Battle for the Soul of a City.  New York: Macmillan, 2006.  Print.