Eastern Adopts Domestic Partnership for Employees

EKU Joins UK, UofL, NKU, Berea & WKU

With a stroke of his pen President Doug Whitlock changed a university regulation and EKU became the fifth Kentucky institution of higher education to grant equal benefits to all employees.

This from the Eastern Progress, graphic by Jacob Pinson:

Employees win decade-long struggle

A decade-long struggle to adopt domestic partner benefits at Eastern came to an end recently when Eastern President Doug Whitlock announced at fall convocation the university would adopt the policy, making it available later this fall.

Referred to in the policy as "sponsored dependent" benefits, the term, President Whitlock told the crowd, wasn't meant to mislead. "Lest anyone accuse me of using a euphemism to cloud this issue, this is what is called at many places 'domestic partner benefits,'" Whitlock said at the Aug. 16 convocation. "To me, this is a matter of fundamental fairness that requires we treat all members of our community equally."

According to the new policy, Eastern employees can now extend their benefits to anyone who lives with them for at least 12 months, so long as the person is:

• 18 years old
• not a relative
• isn't employed by the homeowner
• is not eligible for Medicare

The policy also allows for benefits to dependent children, so long as their primary residence is with the Eastern employee...

Objecting to the President's action in the Progress, history professor Todd Hartch claimed that Whitlock's actions served to undermine marriage, was unconstitutional, and might offend our "generous friends in the legislature." He expressed the vague concern that students might react to Whitlock's endorsement "of unmarried couples living together."

Well, I just couldn't let that pass. So I scribbled out a response.

On EKU’s Domestic Partner Benefits

President Doug Whitlock has signed off on a regulatory change that ended a decade-long push for domestic partner benefits for EKU employees, and history professor Todd Hartch is concerned. (Eastern Progress, 9 Sept)

Apparently, Hartch fears that EKU students have been awaiting guidance from Whitlock and the Board of Regents on whether they should all move in together and make a big pile. Has the university undermined marriage by encouraging students to forego that particular honor in favor of all manner of social intercourse?

Now I consider myself to be something of an expert on marriage, having experienced it with two different women - which the university seemed to think was OK, or perhaps, simply none of their business. Of course it might also be argued that, given the state of heterosexual marriage these days, we straight folks are in no position to offer marital advice to anyone. But both my wives happily enjoyed all of the benefits available to any other state employee’s family without any extraordinary governmental scrutiny.

It seems to me that the primary focus of the Regents has always been, and should always be providing the continual assurance to each and every EKU student and employee that we are a community of equals where all are respected, and none are second-class. The university’s interest lies in assuring that our students are excellent learners, our faculty are excellent teachers, and both have what they need to be successful.

But I’ve been racking my brain, and I just can’t figure out how my marriage is harmed by domestic partner benefits. Fortunately, that question is getting a thorough examination in the California case, Perry v Schwarzenegger, where the judge asked anti-gay marriage advocates to provide evidence that traditional marriage is harmed by gay marriage. When the judge pressed the lead attorney to identify how straight people would be affected, he responded, "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know.” He was certain, however, that children are better off in a stable home, whether that is a traditional union or a civil union.

As all history professors surely know, traditional marriage was really about property and the joining together of men’s fortunes (women considered essentially chattel well into the twentieth century) for political reasons - not sex – so any anxiety over who is sleeping with whom seems a bit misplaced.

Now I suppose one should always be concerned with the legislature’s potential response, but in this case four other public institutions (UK, NKU, UofL and WKU) have already approved domestic partner benefits without any loss of funding. Perhaps Hartch will encourage “our generous friends in the legislature” - who have steadily reduced state support for higher education thus placing increased burdens on our students - to stop dragging their feet and modernize the state tax code so that we might finally end the biennial sleight of hand that produces an untrustworthy budget built on structural imbalances and bad estimates.

As Hartch suggested, students should contact President Whitlock - and thank him. My hope is that you will agree with the Faculty Senate which supported domestic partner benefits with a unanimous vote last spring. Thank Whitlock and the Regents for assuring that the Essential Eastern is a place where every student, every employee, every individual is equally and highly valued.

Partner benefits bill killed

This from the Herald-Leader:

Would have prevented benefits at public universities

FRANKFORT --- A House committee killed a bill that would have prevented public universities and other government agencies from providing health insurance to unmarried domestic partners.

The House Health and Welfare Committee heard from Sen. Vernie McGaha, R-Russell Springs, who sponsored Senate Bill 112. Members asked few questions before voting 9 to 6 against the bill.

McGaha's bill would have prevented the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky from offering health benefits to the unmarried partners of their employees. Both universities offer health benefits to domestic partners. The bill would have allowed coverage for family members living with employees, such as grandparents or parents.

The committee deadlocked, 8 to 8, on a similar bill last year after three hearings.

Sen. Ernesto Scorsone, D-Lexington, said defeat of the bill was a victory for fairness and the right to buy health care. "Folks just want to have the ability to purchase health insurance for their loved ones," he said.

McGaha said the bill was necessary because of a 2004 constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman...

Students rally for rights @ EKU

Photo by Jessica House

Groups promote domestic benefits on campus

Domestic partner benefits has been a heavily-debated subject throughout the year both in Kentucky and throughout the nation. Legislators and citizens have butted heads concerning the possible ramifications of such policies, as well as misconceptions of what domestic partner benefits are.

...The topic reached Eastern Tuesday as students representing various groups, such as the Women's Studies Program and the Pride Alliance, gathered to petition and call for change on campus. "Our Web site claims we can have it all," said Zana Durbin, vice president of the Pride Alliance. "That's what we're asking for."

The event began on Powell corner earlier in the day as students stood outside in the cold passing out fliers and holding signs presenting the argument that equal rights was a necessity at Eastern.

Durbin said the project began in a class with only eight people, but grew exponentially once the Pride Alliance and her professor, who belongs to the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, got involved. As word spread, other groups, such as Student Government Association and the Honors Program, joined and the project gained legs leading to a proposal the groups recently pitched to Eastern President Doug Whitlock, Durbin said. "It's been kind of a grassroots movement that's spread," she said.

The rally in the ravine boasted five speakers representing different departments who all said domestic benefits are key for Eastern to grow as a university.

Richard Freed, a professor in the English department, said he was on the Board of Regents in 2000 when the faculty senate voted for equal benefits on campus, but the proposal was tabled and pushed aside. "I was told by our current president at the time, Hanley Funderburk, that it was too expensive and it (basically disappeared)," he said. ...

Meg Gunderson, a professor of English, theatre and women studies, spoke on how the refusal of Eastern to address domestic benefits is blatant discrimination. She said the faculty senate was ready in 2000 to make it law, but the administration was not ready.

...In addition to the speakers, people were encouraged to sign a petition that would be presented to Whitlock. Durbin said Whitlock was intrigued by their proposal, which also included the past documents from 2000 and UK's domestic partner plan.

Durbin said Whitlock promised to present the issue to the Board of Regents in the future.

This from Marty Finley at the Eastern Progress.

~

The following is the text of the speech delivered by Meg Gunderson who teaches in both the Dept. of English and Theater and the Dept. of Women’s Studies at Eastern:

Equality and Common Sense

Thank you to all of you for being here to support bringing benefits to all, not just some, EKU employees. Thank you to Jerry Thomas, professor of Minority Politics in our Dept. of Govt for encouraging this class project. Thank you to all the students involved in the project.

Today, I am of two minds: I am excited, I am troubled.

One: I am thrilled that we are here together to bring benefits equally to all EKU employees and their partners, regardless of with whom they may live… and regardless of whom they may love. At this moment, in this ravine, is this group of people who support equal benefits, equal access to health insurance, equal access to health care, equal access to a dentist visit, equal access to an eye exam, equal access to an antibiotic, equal access to a pap smear, and equal access to an x-ray.

I am glad we are here today; but I said I was of two minds: I am excited, I am troubled.

It is remarkable that we need to be here at all. Why would EKU choose to exclude some employees and their families from equal benefits? This issue is not a decision to make, nor a policy to consider, nor a debate in which to engage. Rather, treating each EKU employee equally is, quite simply, common sense.

We are at an institution of higher education, a place that values critical thought, that encourages the use of logic; yet, ironically, that same set of institutional values promotes a discriminatory policy. To knowingly and to willfully exclude any member of EKU’s staff or faculty from access to the same benefits offered to other employees and their families is discriminatory. A choice to exclude is a choice to discriminate.

Yet, I argue there should be no choice, nor debate. Instead, EKU’s administration must simply use common sense. Five years ago, EKU’s Faculty Senate recognized that some EKU staff and some EKU professors were prevented from insuring their partners, their loved ones, their children.

Imagine a room: a large, open space with beautiful woodwork on the walls, and soft leather chairs. In that room is a long table at which are seating 20 EKU employees, all of whom are respected, hard-working members of our community. Some of those employees clean classrooms, some cook food, some update software, and some of them teach students. Again, all 20 are respected, hard-working members of our community. Now imagine a policy that tells some of this group that their families are not covered by our insurance plans. Would you not ask, why?

Let’s examine what possible reasons we might be offered to explain why only some of those 20 wonderful, diligent employees should not have equal benefits when, after all, they perform equal work, and they perform that work equally well. Why should we discriminate against these employees?

Reason One: The bottom line. Money. To offer more people benefits costs more money. True. Yet, in a group insurance plan that already covers thousands, how much more cost is it to insure a few more? Very little. Three studies cited by the Human Rights Campaign all show that total benefits cost raised less than 2%, with most going up less than 1%, when an employer offered domestic partner benefits.

While there may be modest monetary cost to offer benefits to all, a lack of equal treatment of all EKU employees is greater. It is common sense that discrimination is more costly than equal benefits for all at EKU. What other reasons might our EKU
administrators offer to explain why we should not treat all employees equally?

Reason Two: Blame the insurer. Our administration may claim that EKU cannot cover domestic partners of EKU employees because the group insurance policy we now have does not include the term, “domestic partner.” Thus, it is not EKU, but rather our insurer, Anthem, that discriminates against some EKU employees and their families because Anthem does not offer coverage to domestic partners.

Could we use common sense to resolve this issue? Yes. EKU could insist that Anthem revises its group policy language to include the term, “domestic partner,” as it defines those included in the group coverage. What if Anthem’s corporate policy is discriminatory and denies coverage to some employees of groups it insures?

Could we use common sense to resolve this issue? Yes. Find another insurer. Yet, our administration may argue such a change would involve too much work. Perhaps they might even invoke reason one again – cost. The cost of labor either to change
our policy or our insurer is too expensive; to which I respond again: the cost of discrimination is more costly than equal benefits.

Reason Three: Now, we start digging more deeply as we mine the ethical consciousness of our institution. EKU administrators may argue that domestic partner benefits is such a contentious issue, that to offer equal benefits to an employee’s domestic partner would insult the beliefs of some EKU students and their families, let alone some of the alumni of EKU. There is no need to mince words here, so I label the most significant reason why domestic partner benefits are not
supported at EKU: fear of homosexuality and a belief that the only “right”sexuality is heterosexuality.

When we hear the term, domestic partner, many attribute it to a lesbian or gay couple.

This brings us to Reason Four: The slippery slope: if we acknowledge the right for lesbians and gays to have equal benefits, then before long, we will be forced to acknowledge their right to be married. We may even have to acknowledge the equal rights of bisexual and transgendered people, too. The equal rights of any citizen should be obvious. If EKU’s administration posits that offering benefits to a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered family is too upsetting to the beliefs of some members of the EKU community is, then it avoids the issue: to exclude any employee at EKU from equal benefits is an exclusionary and discriminatory policy.

Our EKU administration, in providing equal benefits to all employees and their families, regardless of with whom they live… or whom they love, can and should use common sense to end this discrimination.

In March of 2000 (seven years ago!) the Faculty Senate used common sense. It put forth a motion to bring equal benefits to all who work here at EKU. Every vote cast supported the proposal. None voted against it. Yet, the administration did not push it through, rather it chose to wait, it chose to deny equal benefits, it chose to discriminate against some employees and their families.

The entirety of the Faculty Senate in 2000 recognized that to offer equal benefits is common sense.

Given the administration stalled in 2000, we are brought to Reason Five: Wait. Now is not he time. If this logic were used in the past with other movements for equality,
we would be a very straight, very male, and very white institution. If EKU said wait to earlier movements for equality, this University would close its doors to students who are female, who are latino, who are asian, who are black, and to students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. If choosing not to discriminate against EKU students is common sense, then it is also common sense not to discriminate against EKU employees.

Thus far, I provide you with arguments that stem from our institution, and our space in eastern Kentucky. Let’s expand our view and look at some of our neighbors.

Not only is treating all employees equally common sense, it is also common practice. Other institutions of higher education in KY (not to mention many universities in other states) recognize the rights of all employees to have equal benefits, and they include: Univ. of KY, Univ. of Louisville, Berea College and Centre College. EKU can and should join this list; it is an issue of common sense.

Furthermore, should we look beyond the realm of academia, there are nearly 350 corporations that offer equal health benefits for domestic partners listed in the 2008 Corporate Equality Index compiled by the Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org).

If these institutions openly recognize the equal rights to benefits of all employees, why would EKU deny equal benefits?

I hope that soon, I will no longer be of two minds. I hope that soon, I will feel included in this community, rather than excluded simply because I am a lesbian. I want to feel that EKU will recognize my rights, my partner’s rights, and the rights of all my co-workers here at EKU.

After all, domestic partner benefits is common sense.

It is also an issue of common humanity. Treating EKU’s employees equally is an issue of equal human rights. Should an EKU administrator hear my words today, or look me in the eyes, I hope they see a human, a professor, a mentor, a worker deserving of the same benefits as other workers at EKU.

In this moment, EKU can uphold our role as a university that engages in critical thought, and logical decisions, or it can remain mired in outdated policies that maintain discriminatory practices.

Today, I offer a challenge to EKU. Be a force for change. Do not discriminate. Embrace equality. Show every employee at EKU that when they do equal work, they deserve equal benefits.