The following comes from a report produced by HCM strategists, a public policy advocacy consulting firm: “Back to Basics: HIV/AIDS as a Model for Catalyzing Change.”
The legacy of the AIDS movement are staggering, unparalleled in any other disease:
HMC’s main takeaway in their study of what they call the “mass mobilization” and “theater” of the AIDS movement is a question: are present-day health movements too complacent, too polite?:
HIV/AIDS activists showed us that getting attention sometimes requires making people feel uncomfortable. Today, organizations are working to execute on multiple goals and may shy away from actions that make decision makers uncomfortable. Instead, they focus on building relationships and engaging in activities that make decision makers feel safe. They develop sophisticated strategies focused on how to work within the system and the rules, without challenging the notion that the system and the rules as constructed may not be in their best interest. And for individuals who don’t have organizations to work through, challenging the status quo may seem like a Herculean task.
Have we become complacent? In many instances, organizations meet with their elected officials, are invited to meetings at federal agencies, are asked to sit on advisory boards, and are often part of “the process.”
And yet the level of frustration about the speed of getting new treatments and cures is growing. Access and face time do not mean you have decision makers’ attention…
Once activists had garnered the attention to put AIDS on the national agenda, they began to focus in a more targeted way at specific goals, specific institutions, specific solutions. “The activists not only got attention effectively, they also did their homework and knew what to ask for.”
They stumbled across one woman named Iris Long who took them under her wing and served as a mentor. Larry Kramer remembers meeting Long — a housewife from Queens who was also a biochemist — for the first time. “She came to an ACT UP meeting and said ‘you really don’t know anything. You don’t know about the system. You don’t know about the drugs. You don’t know about the science. You don’t know how the government works. You don’t know the FDA from the NIH. You’re just out there yelling and screaming.’” She offered to teach this to anyone who wanted to learn, and a group of advocates, including Jim Eigo, took her up on the offer. From this, a group of highly informed advocates emerged.
AIDS activists became “patient experts” both in the political and bureaucratic processes in Washington and in the scientific process. While protests opened the door, their knowledge and the sophistication of their demands are what ultimately allowed them to become effective advocates for change.
ACT UP created a structured setting for HIV/AIDS activists to come together and speak out in a unified office. They had many committees and there was a committee meeting virtually every night of the week. The committees allowed activists to get together, get to know one another, and create a sense that “they were all working together for the same cause.”
The ACT UP meetings were crucial in sustaining and focusing activists, allowing them to make meaningful connections, and creating a sense of fellowship.
“What ACT UP did so well,” recalls Peter Staley, “is that it had both an outside and an inside strategy.” As part of their inside strategy, clearly defined roles were created. Staley recalls that “there were the real nerdy geeks who just salivated over becoming experts on the most obscure minutia of immunology and virology. And then there were a few big picture people like me.” This combination of expertise created a powerful force.
Jim Eigo refers to this strategy as a “two-handed model.” He says that “we who were working on the inside never could have done what we did if we couldn’t deliver bodies in the streets. But bodies in the streets wouldn’t have gotten the regulatory reform in 14 months that people have been trying elsewhere to do over decades.”