1

Nathaniel Wardwell
Elena Gonzales
AMCV 0190: Displaying Activism
4 April 2011
Difference and Disease

The Effects of Diverse Backgrounds, Ideology, and Methodology on AIDS Activism

The bitter truth was that AIDS did not just happen to America—it was allowed to happen
by an array of institutions… the story of these first five years of AIDS in America is a
drama of national failure, played out against a backdrop of needless death.
--Randy Shilts1
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) travels though blood and bodily fluids, gradually
destroying the body’s immune system. After the disease has been replicating itself for years and
breaking down the body’s defenses without symptoms, a person carrying it develops Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and ultimately succumbs to a brutal array of common
diseases. When AIDS emerged in the early 1980s, primarily among gay men, the U.S.
government had the scientific and fiscal ability to determine its cause, find medicine to fight it,
and to prevent its further spread, while the American media was well equipped to monitor the
government and assure that it took appropriate action to fight an epidemic.2 The government and
media, however, resisted action, allowing thousands to die outside of the public’s awareness and
forcing people from diverse backgrounds with unique ideologies and methodologies to fight
AIDS.3 “Fighting AIDS” entailed educating people and increasing awareness to prevent the
spread of HIV, getting governmental support for People with AIDS (PWAS), and pushing for
pharmaceutical development. This article, written for the exhibition “Activism: Methods for
Achieving Equity” at the John Hay Library at Brown University, aims to explore the fight
against AIDS and how diversity in its various forms influences activism. The diversity of these
activists’ backgrounds and ideologies weakened the movement against AIDS by dividing
activists. At the same time, these diversities also strengthened the AIDS movement by increasing
awareness within the movement about the complex issues surrounding the disease and thus

1
Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic (New York: St. Martin’s Press,
2006), xxii
2
Shilts, Band Played On, xxiii
3
Jennifer Brier, Infectious Ideas: U.S. Political Responses to the AIDS Crisis (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 2009), 1.
 2

informing more effective action. The diverse methodologies of activists, on the other hand, had
their own individual strengths and weaknesses, but on the whole only strengthened the AIDS
movement by increasing outlets for action against the disease.

Gay men were the most conspicuous social group involved in activism against AIDS in
the United States throughout the last two decades of the 20th century. The disease emerged in gay
populations with greater prevalence than other affected groups throughout the early 1980s, so
much so that scientists initially called it Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID).4 Gay activists
were the first to mobilize and form organizations Figure 1

advocating for governmental action against the disease,

such New York’s Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) and
the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP). A
typical pamphlet for ACT UP with their slogan
“Silence=Death” is featured in this exhibition, and can be
seen in Figure 1. Although HIV/AIDS infected a diverse
cross section of the population, homosexuality would
continue to define many of the moral and political debates
about the disease and its treatment.5 Despite the popular
focus on homosexuality in conjunction with AIDS, a wide
variety of infected and affected people became activists to
fight the disease. People affected by AIDS who decided to work against the disease joined
existing activist organizations throughout the late 1980s, bringing racial minorities, women, and
intravenous drug users into organizations that had been previously formed around a white gay
male membership.6 The diversity of groups affected by AIDS proved to be both a great strength
and weakness for those fighting against the disease.

On a fundamental level, this diverse membership strengthened the AIDS movement by

numbers alone; there were countless non-white, non-gay activists who helped increase awareness
about AIDS both at events and throughout their daily lives. Debates about race, gender, and class

4
Shilts, Band Played On, 120
5
Brett C Stockdill, Activism Against AIDS: At the Intersections of Sexuality, Race, Gender, and Class (Boulder: Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Inc, 2003),27
6
Stockdill, Activism Against AIDS, 5.
 3

energized ACT UP, a large organization that utilized civil disobedience to change
pharmaceutical and governmental policies towards AIDS, into a higher state of action and
productivity. 7 Additionally, varying backgrounds led certain activists to push for different
reforms, allowing for simultaneous progress on issues of feminism (the expansion of the
definition of AIDS to better diagnose women for treatment) and class (expansion of housing for
PWAs and needle exchanges) in addition to general progress on funding and research guidelines
in the late 1980s.8 Without contributions of women whom the health industry did not serve with
existing definitions of AIDS, or those living in poverty who found housing unaffordable on top
of medical costs, these important changes in preventing the spread and damages of AIDS would
not have occurred. Thus, diverse backgrounds strengthened the fight against AIDS by increasing
outlets for action and by informing AIDS activists of issues that they needed to address.

The diversity of AIDS activists also proved to be extremely dangerous to the movement
against the disease because it divided those who could be working towards the same goals. As
race and gender theorist Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw argues,” “the problem with identity
politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the
opposite—that it frequently conflates or ignores intra group differences.” 9 ACT UP nationally
split in 1991 because of debates over which issues it should fight as an organization.10
Advocating for the dissolution of ACT UP into smaller organizations with more issue-specific
focuses, Peter Staley, a leader pushing for faster drug development, said:

… A rift has occurred between those of us who joined as a matter of survival and those
who joined seeking a power base from which their social activism could be advanced…
Defeating racism, sexism, and homophobia will take decades at best, and become a
never-ending fight at worst. Successfully countering [these issues] will take more time
than the people with AIDS have.11
Staley’s speech neatly sums up the issue of prioritization within AIDS activism. While someone
infected with HIV from a blood transfusion might focus on blood industry reform, a poor PWA
with children might perhaps focus on housing provision. All of these realms of reform were
7
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 157
8
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 157.
9
Kimberlé Crenshaw Williams, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against
Women of Color,” in The Public Nature of Private Violence, ed. Martha A. Fineman and Rixanne Mykitiuk (New
York: Routledge, 1994), 94.
10
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 182.
11
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 182-3
 4

necessary and could be pursued simultaneously, as they had been in the late 1980s, but the lack
of a clear vision for the “next step” against AIDS led to extensive infighting among activists in
the early 1990s.

The debilitating infighting caused by the diversity of AIDS activists was compounded by
discrimination within the AIDS movement. As sociologist Brett Stockdill argues extensively in
Activism Against AIDS, white gay men became a majority within anti-AIDS organizations and
often unintentionally overlooked the challenges faced by other minorities. 12 For example, the San
Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF) started a safe-sex campaign in 1983 based on advertising
and condom-distribution in gay clubs and bars. This strategy had unintended consequences:

Because SFAF returned again and again to a model that focused on the gay institutions
that it defined as most important (bars and bathhouses with a regular clientele of self-
identified gay men), it was less able to recognize the extent to which its policies
implicitly and explicitly relied on a white gay identity as a universal model for gayness. 13
SFAF’s outreach methods relied on specific gay institutions which didn’t have minority
clienteles. For example, many black and Latino men in the San Francisco area had same-sex
partners but did not identify as homosexuals, and thus safe-sex publications and advertising
distributed to openly-gay men in the predominately-white nightlife system never reached them. 14
This model failed to take into account the racial and cultural diversity of those affected by AIDS.
SFAF recognized these shortcomings, but did nothing to counteract them until dissatisfied
minority activists founded a new organization, the Third World AIDS Advisory Task Force
(TWAATF), to address racism’s effects on AIDS in 1985.15 Despite the strengths that diverse
needs provided for the AIDS movement, when they were ignored the AIDS movement struggled
to make progress, as was the case with SFAF’s campaign from 1983-1985, or splintered under
pressure, as ACT UP did.

While AIDS affected a diverse swath of the American population, the gay-male
domination of the early activism against AIDS cannot be denied. Gay-male activists, however,
were not uniform as a group fighting AIDS in their goals and ideologies. Diverse ideological

12
Stockdill, Activism Against AIDS, 30
13
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 47
14
Brier, Infectious Ideas,65
15
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 60, 62
 5

stances about the meaning and importance of sexual liberation and confidentiality strengthened
and damaged the AIDS movement, just as the diversity of the activists themselves had.

The sexual liberation movement began after the Stonewall riots in 1969, and called for
freedom of gay sexual expression. AIDS forced debates over safer sex and promiscuity in the
gay community into the limelight, making the concept of sexual liberation a battleground
between rights of unrestrained sexuality and public health. The negative effects of differing
ideologies of sexual liberation are easy to see; many gay men dismissed advocates for safe sex,
less promiscuity, or the closing of public bathhouses as “sexual Nazis.”16 Division over the
meaning and values of sexual liberation had a real price: unsafe sex practices and anonymous
bathhouse use continued through the early 1980s, spreading HIV. These problems were
especially clear in San Francisco, where, according to gay historian Randy Shilts, city and health
officials privately supported bathhouse closure but would not take action for years for fear of
losing the support of the gay voters of the city.17 When some gay leaders finally voiced support
for bathhouse closure to city officials, journalist Paul Lorch denounced them in “Killing the
Movement,” an article for the Bay Area Reporter:

The gay liberation movement in San Francisco almost died last Friday morning at 11
AM… [It] was almost killed off by 16 gay men and lesbians last Friday… [They] gave
their names to give the green light to the annihilation of gay life. These 16 people would
have killed the movement, glibly handing it over to the forces that have beaten us down
since time immemorial. 18
Lorch went on to list the AIDS activists supporting bathhouse closure, including gay leaders
Harry Britt and Cleve Jones, leading them to face considerable animosity. 19 Activists like Britt
and Jones were not against sexual liberation; rather, they thought that liberation could transform
into less dangerous sexual practices.20 The debate over sexual liberation divided activists and
delayed changes in gay sexual practices and in policies outlawing public bathhouses.

The diverse gay ideologies about the meaning of sexual liberation did have some positive
effects on the AIDS movement despite the deadly delays in sexual reform that they created.

16
Shilts, Band Played On, 312
17
Shilts, Band Played On, 436
18
Shilts, Band Played On, 445
19
Shilts, Band Played On, 445
20
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 26
 6

Since sexual liberation was ill-defined and a much debated topic, it survived the AIDS crisis in a
re-interpreted form and continues to drive gay politics, notably in current marriage debates.21
The diverse interpretations of sexual liberation allowed AIDS activists to use it in support of
more “satisfying” and “healthier” gay sexual practices.22 Thus, while diverse ideologies of sexual
liberation enabled the spread of HIV through unsafe sex and bathhouses in the early 1980s, the
same diversity of ideologies allowed to concept of sexual liberation to continue to drive gay
politics and to support safer sex.

Diverse ideologies about confidentiality of sexual identity similarly both strengthened

and weakened AIDS activists. In the late 1970s in San Francisco, Harvey Milk continuously
spread his message to “come out” and reveal homosexuality to friends, family, and employers, so
that gay people could stand as individuals and fight for their rights without fear of being exposed
and to raise awareness of homosexuality. 23 Although this “out” culture took hold, as seen in the
gay pride marches in Figure 2, fears about being “outed” and facing discrimination due to
sexuality were still widespread when AIDS emerged.24 The debate over the necessity of
confidentiality of sexuality came to a head when
scientist announced a blood test for HIV in 1984.
Many gay people feared that conservatives could
use HIV tests to create a registry of homosexuals
since the majority of AIDS sufferers were gay, and
then would “out” gays. 25 This debate would have
real consequences: a gay legal group, the Lambda
Legal Defense Fund, threatened to oppose the HIV
antibody test in court in January 1985. Although the

Figure 2 petition against the antibody test was resolved

outside of court quickly once it was actually filed, the threat of it alone delayed the test’s release
by several months.26 Many AIDS activists, of course, had been pursuing the blood tests for years

21
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 15
22
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 26
23
Cleve Jones and Jeff Dawson, Stitching a Revolution: The Making of an Activist (Now York: HarperCollins
Publishers, INC, 200), 55
24
Shilts, Band Played On, 539
25
Shilts, Band Played On, 471
26
Shilts, Band Played On, 521, 539
 7

to prevent the spread of the disease from blood transfusions and from undiagnosed carriers.
These health activists came into direct conflict with activists who valued gay civil rights more
than the test, allowing the disease to spread further.

Despite the delays in testing that confidentiality debates created, concerns about misuse
over the HIV test were well founded. In the mid 1980s, homosexual acts were illegal in twenty-
five states, so a list of HIV-positive (and primarily gay) men could easily be misused by law
enforcement officials. 27 After the test was made available, school officials and country club
owners asked one state health official in Florida for access to test results to filter out gay teachers
and employees. 28 Some conservative politicians also called for mandatory testing to protect
“good people” whom “those thoughtless homosexuals” had not yet infected.29 The debates over
confidentiality did ultimately result in sensible policies that made HIV testing more acceptable to
gay men. In direct response to the Lambda Legal Defense Fund’s court petition against the test,
the federal government attached a label to all copies of the test saying that “it is inappropriate to
use this test as a screen for AIDS or as a screen for members of groups at increased risk for
AIDS in the general population.”30 California put laws in place forbidding the release of blood
test results, a model which many other states adopted with bipartisan support.31 As a result of
these efforts, gay men were more willing to be tested for HIV, which presumably decreased the
spread of HIV from unknowing, asymptomatic carriers of the disease. So, although varying
ideologies of the importance of confidentiality delayed the release of the HIV blood test and hurt
the AIDS movement, the sensible policy changes that the debate over confidentiality resulted in
garnered support for blood tests and thus lessened the spread of the disease.

Given the diversity of AIDS activists themselves as well as their personal ideologies, it
should be no surprise that activists used radically different methods to raise awareness about
AIDS and to take concrete steps against the spread of the disease. Three of the most important
activists in the struggle against AIDS are examined here. Each of these approaches had their own
benefits and drawbacks, but the diversity of the approaches on the whole only strengthened
AIDS movement.
27
Shilts, Band Played On, 471
28
Shilts, Band Played On, 539
29
Shilts, Band Played On, 588
30
Shilts, Band Played On, 539
31
Shilts, Band Played On, 542-3
 8

Cleve Jones was a renowned grassroots gay-organizer in San Francisco by the time AIDS
became a national issue. He supported Harvey Milk by leading gay rallies, marches, and protests,
filling a crucial role that could have damaged Milk’s career as San Francisco supervisor. He
excelled at generating publicity from his demonstrations, creating dramatic visual appeals and
advising media members how to get good angles and positions Figure 3

for the events.32 Jones initially became involved in the fight

against AIDS in various capacities in the California
government, but would have his greatest impact with the
creation of the AIDS Quilt. True to form, Jones first envisioned
the Quilt while leading a march in 1985, in which he handed
out cardboard and markers to protestors to post up the names of
their friends who had died on the San Francisco Department of
Health and Human Services. 33 Recognizing the power of this
image to show the destruction of AIDS as well as love in face
of great loss, Jones started The Names Project to create the
AIDS Quilt.34 Each rectangle of the Quilt is made by family and friends of a casualty of AIDS or
by a PWA for posthumous use, and measures three feet wide by six feet long to mimic the size of
a body. This personalized creation of Quilt squares reflects Jones’ grassroots background; the
Quilt empowers individuals affected by the disease to make a concrete step to raise awareness.

The Quilt has clear strengths as a piece of activism. It is a massive, visually stunning
monument: at its inauguration in 1987, its 1,920 panels covered the space of a football field on
the National Mall (Figure 3); at its final full display in 1996, it had grown to cover the entire mall
Figure 4 with 40,000 panels (Figure 4).35 Such dramatic national
displays garnered considerable attention and awareness about
AIDS while showing its real damages, avoiding political
debates over homosexuality and government policy. Jones
designed the Quilt so that it would be accessible to individual

32
Jones and Dawson, Stitching a Revolution, 42
33
Jones and Dawson, Stitching a Revolution, 105
34
Jones and Dawson, Stitching a Revolution, 108
35
“History of the Quilt,” AIDS Memorial Quilt, accessed April 2, 2011, http://www.aidsquilt.org/history.htm
 9

viewers, sewn with several panels in each independent quilt square so that onlookers can walk
intimately between them and see the work put into each memorial. The parallel between the
personalized access that the Quilt provides and the display of activist work in museums
emphasizes the role that museums can have to inform and spark activism. The Quilt, like
museum exhibits, has faced criticism from many activists who viewed it as a “passive” object,
one that doesn’t call for action but rather for mourning and reflection. 36 Although the Quilt does
not explicitly call for further activism or address the political issues of the AIDS crisis, it
strengthened the AIDS movement by dramatically raising awareness of the scope of the disease
while simultaneously humanizing individuals affected by it to the general public.

While Cleve Jones used his background as a grassroots organizer to piece together a
massive memorial to raise awareness about AIDS, Paul Popham used his background as a New
York City upper-class social organizer to create Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), which
worked to fill the needs of those with AIDS who the state and city governments were ignoring.
Popham started GMHC with Larry Kramer after several of their friends died from complications
of AIDS. He maintained throughout his life that GMHC’s role was to provide social services to
people with AIDS, rejecting Kramer’s calls for public demonstrations, political lobbying, and
safe sex campaigns.37 GMHC was remarkably active and effective as a social service
organization; by the end of 1983 it had 300 clinical volunteers and 20 monthly training sessions
for nurses and doctors, and had raised more than $250,000 in one circus fundraiser alone. 38 In
stark comparison, by that point the entire city of New York had only spent $24,500 on AIDS, as
a stipend to help the Red Cross provide housing for people with the disease.39 This statistic
underlies the greatest weakness of GMHC: it took on a role that the city government of New
York was supposed to be filling. Although GMHC made an impressive impact as a provider of
social services, its political inaction allowed the New York City political system to ignore AIDS.

Larry Kramer left GMHC out of frustration with its strict service-based focus, and
founded ACT UP in 1987 to use civil disobedience to push for government action against AIDS.
Such civil disobedience relied on dramatic displays and often resulted in arrests, as was the case

36
Jones and Dawson, Stitching a Revolution, 127
37
Shilts, Band Played On, 166
38
Shilts, Band Played On, 380, 282
39
Shilts, Band Played On, 380
 10

with the “die-ins” in the Rhode Island Department of Health in 1988, shown in Figure 5.
Kramer was already involved in controversial politics before founding ACT UP. He gained
notoriety in the gay community after writing Faggots in 1978, criticizing the promiscuous
interpretation of sexual liberation even before
Figure 5
AIDS had been discovered. He wrote “1,122
and Counting” for the New York Native in
March of 1983, which was the first piece of
journalism to treat AIDS as a crisis, calling for
immediate government action while lambasting
the media and the gay community for ignoring
the disease. This article “swiftly crystallized the
epidemic into a political movement for the gay community and at the same time it set off a
maelstrom of controversy that polarized gay leaders,” and directly led several other newspapers
to change their policies on reporting AIDS stories. 40 In face of continued negligence of funding
from the New York City government, Kramer wrote the play “The Normal Heart” in 1985. The
play was a hit, and hours following its release New York Mayor Edward Koch rushed a press
conference to announce new city spending of $6 million
Figure 6
against the disease. 41 ACT UP, however, would be Kramer’s
most ambitious and successful project; from its founding in
1987 to its split in 1991, it successfully fought the
government and pharmaceutical companies to speed the drug
development process, to change the clinical definition of
AIDS to reflect how women suffered from the disease so they
could get treatment, to expand housing for people with AIDS, all while raising visibility about
the disease. It relied on primarily on dramatic protests, famously organizing “Seize Control of
the FDA” on October 11, 1988, in which 1,500 protestors surrounded FDA headquarters in
Maryland demanding treatment for AIDS; just two weeks after the protest, the FDA changed its
policies to allow for faster drug development.42 It organized similar protests throughout the late
1980s, including one at the National Institutes of Health shown in Figure 6. The methods of ACT

40
Shilts, Band Played On, 224
41
Shilts, Band Played On, 556
42
Brier, Infectious Ideas, 166
 11

UP, however, were not without critics. ACT UP’s reliance on civil disobedience was, by
definition, meant to be intrusive and provocative in order to spur action, raising the threat of
backlash.43 Many people supporting the fight against AIDS were frustrated by interruptions and
poor treatment by activists, such as at the 5th International Conference on AIDS in Montreal in
1989, where protestors booed and overcame speakers.44 Despite these drawbacks to civil
disobedience, ACT UP still made concrete policy accomplishments through its disruptive
protests.

The AIDS Quilt, GMHC, and ACT UP could hardly be more different approaches to
fight an epidemic. The AIDS Quilt works purely through a visual message of suffering and
support with no explicit political message; GMHC worked exclusively to provide services to
those afflicted with AIDS; and ACT UP worked through civil disobedience to create policy
change and raise awareness about issues in the treatment of AIDS. Each approach had its own
strengths and weaknesses, but methodological drawbacks merely lessened the impact of each
approach, so no one approach damaged the others. Instead, the accomplishments of each
approach complimented the work of the others to fight AIDS.

While methodological diversity only strengthened the AIDS movement, diversity of

activists’ backgrounds and ideologies simultaneously strengthened and weakened the movement
it. The negative effects of diverse backgrounds and ideologies only emerged when differences
divided activists. Had activists been able to overcome internal debates about priorities of the
movement and ideological rifts, they could have more effectively fought together for change.
The positive effects of these diversities, as well as those of methodological diversity, stem from
the increased awareness of the complex effects of AIDS that they brought to the movement, and
from the multiple realms of change that different activists were able to push for. In the light of
the massive scope of the actions taken against AIDS, it is all too easy to forget that this
movement, like all others, rested on the thousands of individuals who stood behind it. People
from all walks of life were infected with HIV and developed AIDS. Some of them may have
been activists before, but most of them were forced into action to try to save their lives and the

43
Alvin Novick, “Civil Disobedience in Time of AIDS,” The Hastings Center Report 19 (1989): 36, accessed April 2,
2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3562329
44
John G. Twomey Jr, Herbert R. Spiers, and Alvin Novick, “AIDS Activism,” The Hastings Center Report 20 (1990):
39, accessed April 2, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3562769
 12

lives of those close to them. The AIDS movement is unique in its diversity precisely because of
the disparate individuals the disease affected and forcefully brought together. The lessons from
the successes and failures of this movement apply to activism today that deals with
intersectionality, such as current queer movement debates over the inclusion of transgender
rights in legislation, so that diversity does not divide people fighting for similar goals but rather
unites them and strengthens their work for positive change.
 13

Bibliography

AIDS Memorial Quilt. "History of the Quilt." Accessed April 2, 2011.

http://www.aidsquilt.org/history.htm

Brier, Jennifer. Infectious Ideas: U.S. Political Responses to the AIDS Crisis. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 2009. WorldCat (ID: 646846976)

Jones, Cleve and Jeff Dawson. Stitching a Revolution: The Making of an Activist. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, Inc, 2000.

Novick, Alvin. "Civil Disobedience in Time of AIDS." The Hastings Center Report 19 (1989):
35-36. Accessed April 2, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3562329

Shilts, Randy. And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic. New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1987.

Stockdill, Brett C. Activism Against Aids: At the Intersections of Sexuality, Race, Gender, and
Class. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, 2003.

Twomey, John G. Jr, Herbert R. Spiers and Alvin Novick. "AIDS Activism." The Hastings
Center Report 20 (1990): 39-40. Accessed April 2, 2011.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3562769

Williams, Kimberlé Crenshaw. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and
Violence Against Women of Color". In The Public Nature of Private Violence, edited by
Martha Albertson Fineman and Rixanne Mykitiuk, 93-118. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Images

Figure 1: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 92-1.

Figure 2: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 18-2 x.

Figure 3: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 92-1.

Figure 4: Richard G. Katzoff Collection, Brown University Library, Ephemera.

Figure 5: “ACT UP Die-In.” Kelly Garrett, 1988.

Figure 6: Gordon Hall and Grace Hoag Collection of Dissenting and Extremist Printed
Propaganda, Brown University Library, Ms. 76, Box 92-1.