Monday, March 3, 1997
DISCRIMINATION:
Atkinson allows university to lag behind conservatives in
extending equal supportBy refusing equal benefits for domestic
partners, the UC system is blatantly violating the principle of
equal pay for equal work. If students, faculty, and staff conjoined
in same-sex relationships are as valuable to the UC as their
heterosexual counterparts, UC President Atkinson should back the
sentiment with immediate, fair-minded action. Any failure to
respond can only be seen as an open, sustained display of
discrimination.
The term "domestic partners" can be defined as two individuals
of the same sex who live together, share financial obligations, and
hold an exclusive, enduring relationship which is intended to be
indefinite. Because federal and state legislature, alarmingly, will
not acknowledge same-sex marriages, those committed to same-sex
relationships are never given the option to receive spousal
benefits. Therefore it is up to local institutions to step up and
recognize the validity of these relationships. And it is up to the
UC system to extend equitable support to all who work and reside
within its academic community.
A university should be among the first institutions to eliminate
discrimination within its charter. However, the UC system is
trailing two years behind the conservative-minded Disney
Corporation in its extension of benefits to domestic partners.
There is something disturbing about a university whose progress
lags behind that of an establishmentarian mouse.
And, as maintained by Charles Outcalt, Director of the LGBT
Resources Office, it becomes an issue of recruitment and retention.
The current UC policies do not exactly welcome with open arms those
top students and faculty applicants involved in lasting same-sex
relationships. Our skewed benefits program is a dispiriting and
inaccurate indication as to the political and social climate on UC
campuses.
Currently, the UC offers some "soft" benefits for domestic
partners. These benefits include gym membership, library cards,
counselling services, and restricted health coverage. However, the
benefits vary from group to group and from UC to UC; there is no
uniformity. Further, these soft benefits are insufficient. The
Daily Bruin editorial staff wants to see the adoption of benefits
for domestic partners which exactly match those currently offered
to spouses. Among other things, the extension would include housing
and comprehensive health care.
There are no impediments here other than Atkinson’s
listlessness:
Stanford University, which has established equal benefits for
domestic partners, reports an increased cost of less than 0.3
percent. Many insurance companies, including Aetna, Blue Cross, and
Cigna, have expressed willingness to provide health coverage for
domestic partners. More than 100 employers and institutions provide
domestic partner benefits with a system of affidavits and waiting
periods designed to eliminate fraud.
A university is no place for repression. By recognizing the
validity of same-sex relationships through the provision of equal
benefits, the UC will promote a healthier, more participatory
learning environment.
Fair warning: Today’s discrimination of same-sex relationships
will one day be as embarrassing to our society as racial
segregation. Hindsight will eventually reveal the absurdity behind
our treatment of common-gender relationships.
It is a shame that the UC system was not a leader in the advent
of uniform treatment for domestic partners. Still, there is no
excuse for waiting or waffling. The UC system must get with the
times. End the discrimination now.