Author Archives: Jessica

Policy on #HIV related travel restrictions adopted by @WFPHA_FMASP at #WCPH2017 now posted

After APHA adopted its permanent policy statement on HIV-related immigration restrictions that we submitted at last year’s Annual Meeting, the IH Section worked with APHA’s WFPHA liaison, Dr. Deborah Klein-Walker, to submit a corresponding policy proposal on behalf of APHA to the World Federation of Public Health Associations, which held its 15th World Congress on Public Health this month in Melbourne, Australia. The proposal was accepted and passed by the WFPHA Policy Committee at the meeting, and has now been posted the website (PDF). The text of the policy (excluding references) is below.

Scientific evidence and treatment needed to combat the spread of HIV – not ineffective travel bans

Submitted by the American Public Health Association
(Contact person D. Walker)

Introduction
HIV-related restrictions against entry, stay, and residence remain common around the world. Various countries have policies that mandate HIV testing of all or certain groups of foreign nationals as a condition of obtaining a visa for employment. These policies have no basis in science and violate migrant workers’ human rights to confidentiality and informed consent to testing, exposing them to exploitation by their employers. According to UNAIDS, 35 countries currently have official HIV-related travel restrictions. Furthermore, HIV-related travel restrictions against foreign nationals have been shown by international treaty bodies, international legal scholars, and human rights organizations to constitute discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and/or country of origin.

Scope and Purpose
Restrictions on travel, immigration, or residence related to HIV status are a violation of the principles of nondiscrimination and equal treatment in all international human rights laws, treaties, and agreements. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to equal protection under the law, free from discrimination based on race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status, and the UN Commission on Human Rights has determined that this includes discrimination based on health status, including HIV infection. According to the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, while international human rights law allows governments to restrict rights in cases of emergency or serious public concern, the restrictions must be the minimum necessary to effectively address the concern – and HIV-related travel restrictions have been overwhelmingly ruled as both overly intrusive and ineffective public health policy. Within such restrictions, compulsory HIV testing is a serious violation of numerous human rights principles, including the right to bodily integrity and dignity. The accompanying deportation and/or loss of employment and residency status of HIV-infected migrants that frequently accompanies such testing violates the rights of PLWHA to privacy, work, and appropriate medical care. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has specifically stated that neither HIV tests nor private HIV-related personal information should be required of employees or job applicants.

Despite this robust evidence base, according to UNAIDS, 35 countries currently have official HIV-related travel restrictions openly acknowledged and enforced by the government. These restrictions vary from outright entry bans, which bar PLWHA from entering the country, to restrictions on stays longer than a specified period of time or to obtain employment visas or residency status. Others have inconsistent policies and/or intentionally misrepresent their policies with HIV-related restrictions. Such policies and practices, and the number of migrants impacted by them, are difficult to track because of differing or ambiguous definitions and a lack of data. Some of the most restrictive policies subject immigrants to mandatory HIV testing, either when applying for residency or for an employment visa, which is frequently required by states for legal residency.

The two primary justifications provided by governments for mandatory HIV tests for migrant workers and other HIV-related travel restrictions are to protect public health and reduce the cost burden on the country’s healthcare system imposed by providing HIV care services to foreign nationals. While countries have the right to employ measures to protect their populations from communicable diseases of public health concern, HIV is not transmitted by casual contact, meaning there is no scientific basis for attempting to control its spread via immigration policies. Furthermore, countries that do not have HIV-related travel restrictions have not reported any negative public health consequences compared to those that do, and recent analysis suggests that even migration from countries with generalized HIV epidemics does not pose a public health risk to destination countries.

In fact, immigration policies banning or restricting entry or employment based on HIV status often have the opposite effect of their protective intention, causing direct harm to the health of both of immigrants and citizens. They marginalize PLWHA, regularly discourage people from accessing HIV testing and treatment, and reinforce stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes against PLWHA in the general population. Regulations requiring HIV tests of immigrants can promote the idea that foreigners are dangerous to the national population and a public health risk, as well as creating a false sense of security by reinforcing the notion that only migrants are at risk for infection. Additionally, such attitudes can adversely impact the host country’s own HIV epidemic, as citizens who are unaware of their HIV-positive status, underestimating their own HIV risk and avoiding testing due to stigmatization, are more likely to transmit the virus to others, driving up infection rates.

State-enforced HIV screening of migrants costs far more than it saves in treatment costs. Screening travelers and migrants for HIV is impractical and expensive.[5][13][19] Labor migrants (both regular and undocumented) bring significant economic benefits to their host countries, in addition to themselves, and this cost-benefit balance remains even when migrants are HIV-positive and rely on the host country’s health care system for treatment and support.

Fields of Application:

  • National public health associations and their members
  • Human rights and HIV advocacy groups
  • UNAIDS
  • The World Federation of Public Health Associations

Action Steps:

The WFPHA joins with UNAIDS, the World Health Assembly, and other HIV and human rights organizations (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, ILO) to call on all countries that still maintain and/or enforce HIV-related restrictions on entry, stay, or residence to eliminate such restrictions, ensuring that all HIV testing is confidential and voluntary and that counseling and medical care be available to all PLWHA within its borders, including migrants and foreign nationals.

The WFPHA affirms the following principles:

  • All people have the right to confidential and voluntary HIV testing and counseling.
  • Persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) have the right to privacy, to work, and to appropriate medical care.
  • All HIV-related travel and immigration restrictions currently in place should be removed.
  • Agencies and businesses who employ foreign nationals should not use HIV tests as a means to discriminate against potential employees.
  • Governments should provide HIV prevention and treatment services that are equally accessible to citizens and foreign nationals.
  • Migrant workers should have access to culturally appropriate HIV prevention and care programs in languages that they can understand.

The WFPHA recommends that:

  1. Public health associations in every country should:
    1. Develop policies opposing HIV-related travel restrictions;
    2. Document and/or support human rights and HIV advocacy groups in documenting immigration policies that explicitly discriminate, or allow employers to discriminate, against migrants based on HIV status;
    3. Document and/or support human rights and HIV advocacy groups in documenting any HIV testing practices that are not voluntary or confidential;
    4. Inform their members and the public that HIV-related travel restrictions and compulsory HIV testing of foreign nationals is a violation of human rights and does not protect public health or reduce health care costs; and
    5. Advocate for the removal of any and all HIV-related travel restrictions enforced or condoned by their country governments.
  2. UNAIDS should take steps to ensure that its protocols to research and investigate countries’ HIV-related travel restrictions are sufficiently thorough by monitoring and documenting any reported instances of HIV-related discrimination targeting immigrants, particularly when presented with evidence demonstrating that recognition of a country’s removal of HIV-related travel restrictions is unwarranted, in order to ensure that governments are not able to misrepresent their policies in order to gain undeserved recognition for supporting human rights with regard to HIV/AIDS.

WFPHA supports the removal of all HIV-related travel restrictions and travel related mandatory testing.

#D4CA Challenge: UN Global Pulse calls for research proposals to analyze business data to combat #climatechange

Note: This was cross-posted to my own blog.


Rose Schneider, chair of the IH Section’s Climate Change & Health Working Group, shared this information about the Data for Climate Action challenge. It’s an initiative by the UN’s Global Pulse to recruit researchers and data scientists to “leverage private big data to identify revolutionary new approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation” – that is, use corporate datasets, which have been de-identified and made available by participating companies, for projects or analyses that “generate innovative climate solutions.” According to the press release:

Data for Climate Action will target three areas relevant to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal on climate action (SDG 13): climate mitigation, climate adaptation, and the linkages between climate change and the broader 2030 Agenda.

The challenge aims to generate original research papers and tools that demonstrate how data-driven innovation can inform on-the-ground solutions and transform efforts to fight climate change. It builds upon the model of data science competitions pioneered by organizations like Kaggle, and company-specific initiatives to share big data for the public good, such as the “Data for Development” challenges hosted by Orange.

Researchers who are selected to participate in Data for Climate Action will have four months to conduct their research. A diverse panel of experts in climate change and data science will evaluate final submissions based on their methodology, relevance, and potential impact. Winners will be announced in November of 2017.

The data being offered includes retail transaction data, social media posts, meteorological and air quality data, and user-generated data on road conditions. Data sets can be combined with each other or with other publicly available datasets like those featured on Data is Plural. Individuals or teams can submit proposals, and the only apparent requirement is that all participants be at least 18 years old.

They’ve apparently extended the deadline from April 10th to the 17th, so any analysts or programmers who aspire to code for the public good still have ten days to get their applications together and apply.

APHA Component letter to @UNAIDS: South Korea’s #HIV immigration restrictions

After two years, two APHA policy statements (one interim and one permanent), dozens of e-mails (and perhaps just as many drops of blood, sweat, and tears), and a few phone calls, we have finally sent a letter to UNAIDS urging it to revoke its recognition of South Korea’s status as a country without any HIV restrictions – until it actually produces and enforces policies that actually reflect that status.

Heartfelt thanks to Dr. Laura Altobelli, our Section Chair; Mona Bormet, our Advocacy/Policy Committee’s advocacy coordinator; and all of the Components who signed on to this hard-won letter (and the policy proposals that led up to it):

If there is one thing I have learned through this odyssey, it is that the work of advocacy is exhausting. It takes the old adage of “marathon not sprint” to a whole new level. The patience required to work within the boundaries, and according to the rules, of whatever framework you are trying to leverage to produce change can be maddening at times, but I suppose that is the inevitable price we pay to work with others. The larger your advocacy “vehicle” is, the more likely it is to be effective, but the more restrictions you have to work within. Or around, as the case may be.

On a more positive note, we also got a corresponding policy approved for adoption by the World Federation of Public Health Associations at their assembly (which kicked off today!). It will be posted here as soon as it is published, with potentially more letters to follow. Stay tuned.

The full text of the letter, followed by an embedded PDF, is below.

Dear Executive Director Dr. Michel Sidibé:

On behalf of the International Health Section of the American Public Health Association (APHA), we write to notify you of a new APHA policy statement, “Opposition to Immigration Policies Requiring HIV Tests as a Condition of Employment for Foreign Nationals,” which was adopted at the Association’s 2016 Annual Meeting.1 As you may know, APHA was founded in 1872 and is the oldest organization of public health professionals in the world. It has a long-standing commitment to promoting global health and protecting human rights, recognizing that these two go hand-in-hand.

HIV-related travel restrictions are recognized as a violation of human rights and have been well-established as ineffective at reducing the spread of HIV. Such policies further marginalize people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), discourage people from accessing HIV testing and treatment, and reinforce stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes against PLWHA in the general population. According to APHA’s policy statement, “[immigration] policies that mandate HIV testing of [foreign nationals] as a condition of obtaining a visa for employment…have no basis in science and violate migrant workers’ human rights to confidentiality and informed consent to testing, exposing them to exploitation by their employers.”

Increasing awareness of the harms of mandatory testing and accompanying pressure from multilateral institutions and human rights advocates has begun to prompt countries to lift travel bans and change their immigration policies. We recognize that UNAIDS has been instrumental in this effort and laud the organization both in its leadership on this initiative and the progress that it has made. APHA’s policy statement specifically cites the work of the UNAIDS International Task Team on HIV-related Travel Restrictions and notes that “[a]dvocacy efforts using [the Task Team’s findings] have resulted in several countries loosening these restrictions or, in some cases, dropping them entirely: the number was reduced from 59 to 45 countries in 2011 and, as of September 2015, to 35.” APHA’s policy statement calls on UNAIDS and others to “continue to call on all countries that still maintain and/or enforce HIV-related restrictions on entry, stay, or residence to eliminate such restrictions, ensuring that all HIV testing is confidential and voluntary and that counseling and medical care be available to all PLWHA within its borders.” We urge UNAIDS to continue this work to make further progress in the remaining countries that enforce HIV travel restrictions.

The policy statement also recommends that “UNAIDS take steps to ensure that its protocols to research and investigate countries’ HIV-related travel restrictions are sufficiently thorough by monitoring and documenting any reported instances of HIV-related discrimination targeting immigrants, particularly when presented with evidence demonstrating that recognition of a country’s removal of HIV-related travel restrictions is unwarranted, in order to ensure that governments are not able to misrepresent their policies in order to gain undeserved recognition for supporting human rights with regard to HIV/AIDS.”

One such example of misrepresentation of HIV-related immigration policy can be found with the Republic of Korea (ROK), which subjects foreign nationals applying for visas to work or study under several visa categories to mandatory HIV testing.2,3 Recent decisions by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination4 and the National Human Rights Commission of Korea5 both confirm the ongoing existence and enforcement of mandatory testing for E-2 visa applicants and recommend that they be struck down. Unfortunately, despite this discriminatory requirement, ROK representatives declared at the 2012 International AIDS Conference that their government had removed all HIV-related travel restrictions and, as a result, the country was granted “green” (restriction-free) status by UNAIDS6, while other states with HIV-related restrictions similar to those enforced by ROK7 are still classified as “yellow” on this map. This inconsistency in the application of UNAIDS’ assessment criteria could threaten the progress made on reducing HIV-related travel restrictions. We strongly urge UNAIDS to revoke ROK’s status as a country with no HIV-related travel restrictions until it eliminates all mandatory HIV testing policies.

Finally, we express our continued commitment to the UNAIDS goals of reducing HIV transmission, fortifying the rights of all who live with HIV/AIDS, and eliminating stigma and discrimination.

Sincerely,

Laura C. Altobelli, DrPH, MPH
Chair, International Health Section

Willi Horner-Johnson, PhD
Chair, Disability Section

Randolph D. Hubach, PhD, MPH
Chair, HIV/AIDS Section

Lea Dooley, MPH, MCHES
Chair, Population, Reproductive, and Sexual Health Section

Gabriel M. Garcia, PhD, MA, MPH
Chair, Asian Pacific Islander Caucus

Titilayo A. Okoror, PhD
Chair, Caucus on Refugee and Immigrant Health

Gabriel Galindo, DrPH, MPH, CHES
Chair, LGBT Caucus of Public Health Professionals

Benjamin Mason Meier, JD, LLM, PhD
Chair, Human Rights Forum


https://aphaih.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/apha-rok-hiv-travel-restrictions-letter.pdf

Five sobering job search lessons I learned from analyzing the global health job market

This is the second part of a three-part series the IH Blog will feature this week called Global health career insights: Lessons on the job market, how to crack it, and what to do once you’re in.


One “global health career beginnings” story that has stuck with me over the years was one that was shared at the International Health Careers panel discussion put on by the Section at APHA’s 2011 Annual Meeting. The panelist explained that he got his start in global health because he and his wife were hopeless idealists who wanted to provide health care to the poorest. In true 60s hippie spirit, the two of them climbed into their Volkswagen after he finished medical school and drove from Germany to Morocco by way of the Bosphorus to volunteer their services through an order of nuns who were providing care and support to the locals. “Of course,” he chuckled, “you can’t do that anymore.”

Nearly every career path story I hear from the global health professionals that are now approaching retirement is woven with the same frustrating thread.

You might say I failed at landing my “dream job” in global health. Unlike many well-established and highly experienced global health professionals of the Baby Boomer generation, I have wanted a career in global health since I was earning my MPH back in 2007. However, despite being the child of a first-generation immigration, being fluent in both Portuguese and French, having top-notch grades, and slowly working my way through increasingly advanced public health jobs in the U.S. over the years, dozens (if not hundreds) of applications for positions with global health and international development government agencies, government contractors, and non-profits have gone unanswered. An application to the Peace Corps went nowhere. After a while, I gave up. I taught English in South Korea to gain international work experience and started doing consulting and freelancing instead. That turned out to be a much more fruitful avenue: I have since been able to work with DAWNS Digest and on a climate change mitigation project in China, which turned into a book. Eight years after getting my MPH, I love what I do, but I’ve never actually occupied a “typical” global health job.

It’s possible that my job profile is worthless from an international perspective and I am simply unaware of that fact, but I doubt it. (In fact, I’ve been assured otherwise by multiple global health professionals and recruiters.) I began to suspect that the rosy picture being painted for me and other aspiring global health professionals by seasoned global health experts – that all that is needed for a career in global health besides some technical public health knowledge is an adventurous spirit and basic cross-cultural adaptability – was missing the mark. Out of hundreds of global health job vacancies I have scrolled through over nearly a decade, many call for a career’s worth of highly specialized technical knowledge. I began to wonder what the job market for global health graduates really looked like, and whether a simple willingness to “establish trust,” “practice humility,” and “respect the culture” were enough to break into that elusive technical advisor role. That was why we launched the Global Health Jobs Analysis project last year. We are finalizing the results for a manuscript this spring, but we presented initial findings at last year’s APHA meeting – results that pose a sobering counterpoint to the typical career advice presented to aspiring global health professionals.

1. The current global health job market looks completely different now than it did 25 years ago. Of the 1,007 distinct private-sector jobs captured by the analysis over six months, 75% were at the manager (median 5 years of relevant experience required), technical expert (6 years), or director level (8 years). Only 10% of jobs were considered entry-level. For overseas positions, that number is even smaller (6%). The difference on the supply side is staggering as well. Graduate training programs in global health have exploded in the last ten years, right along with the cost of university tuition. Now the applicant pool doesn’t just consist of anyone who happens to walk through the door – managers have their pick of tens of thousands of job applicants who can submit their resumes online. Valuable career advice should start with tips on how to get your resume through the screening software and in front of a pair of human eyes.

2. Front-door entry to global health jobs in the US government is all but impossible. At the Global Health Diplomacy session at last year’s APHA meeting, James Kolker, Assistant Secretary at the US Office of Global Affairs, admitted that no DHHS agencies had an entry mechanism or career path for global health professionals. Our analysis of federal jobs corroborates this: of the 123 global health-related jobs posted by the federal government during data collection for the analysis, none were open to master’s-level graduates (GS-9). 81% were GS-13 level or higher; for USAID, that figure went up to 85%. Anything higher than a GS-11 essentially requires at least a year of previous experience in a government agency, which means that these jobs are only accessible to those already on the inside. Also, many federal public health agencies rely on highly competitive fellowship programs as recruiting mechanisms and entry points. GHFP serves as one such mechanism for USAID. Of the 25 fellowship positions the program posted during data collection, all but 3 were for technical experts, with a median of 10 years of relevant professional experience required.

3. You have to be in the area and know someone on the inside. One hiring manager for Chemonics, USAID’s largest contractor (who, incidentally, got fined for discriminatory hiring practices last year), told me that he and most of the other managers in his division would not bother looking at submitted resumes that did not have a local address. Virtually all CDC recruiters I have talked to are reluctant to even interview someone outside of Atlanta. USAID and CDC in particular are increasingly turning to contractors to manage global health projects (which are typically short-term) and find technical experts to lead them. As with most other sectors, the best way to get in is to know somebody on the inside. Recruiters for these contractors tend to hire people they have previously worked with, many of whom are retired agency employees, which creates a “revolving door” with a limited group of professionals. Put another way by AidLeap:

Sadly, a lot falls down to who you know and/or luck. Many colleagues have told me they were in the right place at the right time, or that someone they knew from a previous job had helped them out. It’s wrong and I find it a very difficult pill to swallow, however, it is the reality.

4. The international development field, including global health, rewards unpaid work – and thus favors the wealthy. A lot has already been written about this by Gen-X development professionals who tend to be more forthcoming about the difficulties in breaking into this kind of career. Alanna Shaikh has touched on this issue in her own experience, explaining, “International development is a brutally competitive field to get into…If your heart is set on [it], then be prepared for a lot of unpaid jobs before you find one with a salary.” Similarly, Chris Blattman admits, “Be prepared to volunteer your first couple of jobs. The paid opportunities will come in droves, but only after you distinguish yourself from the mass of inexperienced undergraduates who want to work abroad. Offer to work for free, and consider paying your own airfare over to look for opportunities.” The trouble with this reality is that it favors people who have outside financial support (read: wealthy parents) and/or no student loan debt. An intense spotlight was shone on this fact with the story of the UN intern who found himself living in a tent on Lake Geneva. There is a tragic irony in the fact that careers in a field devoted to helping the poorest are largely inaccessible to those who are not wealthy.

5. We’re supposed to be putting ourselves out of business, anyway. There is a good reason that the number of entry- and mid-level jobs in global health and development projects is shrinking – those jobs are now occupied by citizens of the countries those projects are meant to benefit. Frankly, this is how it should be. We want low- and middle-income countries to take the lead on their own development. Unfortunately, this leads to a natural “aging” of the global health professional in demand, as the spots remaining to be filled are those requiring many years of targeted technical experience for a given project. All this has combined to make global health a murderously competitive field for American MPH grads.

Cultural competency and playing well with others are incredibly important in global health, and any career advice should emphasize those skills. But those lessons learned come in handy after you land the global health job. The student and ECP members of the IH Section, who make up nearly half of our total membership, will need more than just cultural competency and a listening ear to be able to land work as global health technical advisors. My hope is that the results and insights from the Global Health Jobs Analysis will help them to build careers that will eventually land one of those elusive, increasingly competitive “dream jobs.”


These are difficult realities to confront, and may make entry into the global health profession seem out of reach. Don’t despair! There is still room in this field for dedicated professionals, but cracking that “dream job” takes some strategic planning. Please stay tuned for the final part of this series, “Five practical career development suggestions to position yourself for the global health profession.”

Finally, a #humanrights win for #HIV in Korea

Note: This was cross-posted to my own blog.


Seven years after it dismissed initial complaints against the South Korean Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) policy of mandatory HIV and drug tests for foreign English teachers, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) has (finally!) recommended that the MOJ remove the testing requirement. NHRCK’s recommendation follows the decision of the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in May 2015, which stated that the MOJ’s policy requiring a health check which includes HIV and drug tests for native-speaking English teachers (those on the E-2 visa) constitutes racial discrimination.

The complaint which led to the ruling, filed by a teacher from New Zealand against the Ulsan Metropolitan Office of Education, was initially submitted to the NHRCK in 2009 when the testing policy was first implemented. Unfortunately, the commission dismissed it, along with 50 others protesting the policy, and cancelled its initial plans for a public hearing on the grounds that they were not willing to hear cases on individual complaints. (You can read more about the NHRCK’s decision and the events leading up to it in a paper (PDF) by Ben Wagner, the human rights attorney who filed the case on the New Zealand teacher’s behalf.) In dismissing the complaints, however, the commission allowed the case to be taken to the CERD, where it was accepted in 2012.

Now the commission has formally backed the CERD’s ruling, which – despite the fact that it took seven years to get there – is a big win on the topic. HIV is a forgotten disease (PDF) in South Korea and is incredibly stigmatized, which makes it easy for government agencies like the MOJ to codify this kind of direct discrimination without any public outrage or pushback from within the country. In this sense, the challenge to this ongoing affront to human rights from an authoritative domestic institution is crucial. In particular, the commission’s decision calls out the MOJ’s policy as blatant racial discrimination, specifically citing the fact (also noted in the CERD’s decision) that the tests have no basis in the protection of public health because both Korean nationals and non-citizen ethnic Koreans are exempt from the testing requirement:

[T]he Ministry of Justice takes a stand that an independent state is bestowed with wide discretion in its immigration control and, in particular, such tests are indispensable as the instructors are supposed to protect young students and facilitate a safe environment and public health.

However, as noted by the CERD, even the vast discretion embedded in immigration control hardly renders it reasonable that while Korean teachers and ethnically Korean foreign language instructors are exempted from the testing, only foreign E-2 visa holders are under an obligation to test for HIV. Likewise, the concerns about a safe public health environment offer little ground for different treatment between ethnically Korean teachers and foreign instructors with E-2 visas.

Second, it points out that the policy has the potential to stigmatize foreigners as being high-risk for HIV and thus lead the general public to believe that they are not at risk for infection. This is important, as the country’s HIV infection rate continues to climb.

The MOJ never responded to, or changed its testing policies in response to, the UN CERD’s ruling. Hopefully the Korean government will be more responsive to a ruling from a domestic institution, but there is no way to know for sure. However, foreign English teachers now have a resource to challenge the testing if they wish. The NHRCK decision explicitly states that the UN CERD decision carries the same authority as domestic Korean law:

Article 6 (1) of the [Korean] Constitution states, “Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea,” indicating that the country has a legally binding obligation to facilitate the rights prescribed by the treaty to which it agrees by means of accession, ratification or succession. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates, “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith,” while Article 27 states, “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

English teachers may be able to use the CERD decision to persuade their employers not to require the HIV test; alternatively, they have the option to file a complaint with the NHRCK (either named or anonymous) and/or the UN CERD Secretariat. The full decision has been made available by Matt von Volkenburg on Gusts of Popular Feeling.

Shameless plug: I will be presenting on this topic, including successes and ongoing advocacy initiatives, at this year’s APHA Annual Meeting in Denver.

APHA (@PublicHealth) late-breaker policy on HIV testing for immigrants posted

Note: This was cross-posted to my own blog.


As I mentioned in my recap of the 2015 APHA Annual Meeting, I authored a late-breaker policy, “Opposition to Policies Requiring a Negative HIV Test as a Condition of Employment for Foreign Nationals,” that was put forth by the IH Section and passed by the Governing Council with overwhelming support. That policy has now been finalized and posted to APHA’s Policy Statement Database. You can read the full text of the policy here.

According to APHA Joint Policy Committee (JPC) guidelines,

Approved late-breaker policy statements will be considered valid, but interim for one year. Late-breaker policy statement authors will need to revise, update, and resubmit their policy statements to the standard proposed policy statement review process…Late-breaker policy statements will be subject to full review and reaffirmation in the next annual policy development cycle. If the late-breaker is not resubmitted, it will expire after one year.

I am working with the Section’s Policy/Advocacy Committee to develop a standard policy proposal as a follow-up to the late-breaker, which will be submitted for consideration at this year’s Annual Meeting in Denver.

More HIV discrimination from the ROK government: Korea disqualifies students with HIV from receiving scholarships

A few regular readers might be familiar with the Korean government’s ongoing misrepresentation of its HIV-related immigration restrictions: while it continues to receive undeserved recognition from the UN for being a country free of HIV-related travel restrictions, it mandates HIV tests for native-speaking English teachers, EPS workers (manual laborers), and entertainment workers. Despite claims from KCDC and Korea’s ministry of foreign affairs that immigration restrictions have been lifted, one English teacher won a discrimination case with the UN CERD earlier this year, and another case is pending with the ICCPR. Our Section was even successful in pushing through a resolution on immigration restrictions tied to HIV status at this year’s APHA Annual Meeting that called Korea out specifically for its double-talk.

Now there more evidence of discrimination to add to the list. The Korean Government Scholarship Program, which provides funding and airfare for non-Koreans interested in pursuing post-graduate degrees at a Korean university, is open to a small number of foreign nationals each year and is actively advertised on Korean embassy websites and even featured on several university websites for current undergraduates who might be interested. The program “is designed to provide higher education in Korea for international students, with the aim of promoting international exchange in education, as well as mutual friendship amongst the participating countries,” and the payment includes tuition, airfare, a monthly allowance, a research allowance, relocation (settlement) allowance, a language training fee, dissertation printing costs, and medical insurance. Which sounds lovely, except:

Applicants must submit the Personal Medical Assessment (included in the application form) when he/she apply for this program, and when it’s orientation, an Official Medical Examination will be done by NIIED. A serious illness (For example, HIV, Drug, etc) will be the main cause of disqualification from the scholarship.

It is also worth noting that pregnancy can disqualify candidates as well.

The best part is that this information is not even hidden: a Google search on the above line pulls up dozens of results, and the restrictions on prominently featured on the websites of Korean embassies to the US, the UK, Australia, Malaysia, plus the Korean Education Center in New York, GWU’s Sigur Center for Asian Studies, and even Seoul National University (DOC), the most prestigious university in the country.