It seems an odd thing to me because by doing this the AHA have helped publicise his comments whereas I doubt anybody really knew he had been given that award or would expect the AHA to be endorsing anything he said 25 years later.
If what he says now goes against the AHA's values then they could issue a disclaimer that winners of past awards are not representatives of the AHA.
There's always a line between letting someone get away with filthy shit and publicising the filthy shit, for sure. I'm happy enough with the AHA's views of the balance of those things in this instance.
Comment