Three important figures in the campus community threw their voices into the ring this week in the ongoing debate over domestic partner benefits on campus: the president, students and an alumnus/donor.
In an e-mail to The Minaret, President Ronald L. Vaughn publicly addressed the issue for what is believed to be the first time. Meanwhile, students from around campus offered their opinions, mostly in support of domestic partner benefits. And an openly gay alumnus who is now a vice president at Emory University is pushing his former advisor, President Ronald L. Vaughn, to offer DPB.
For his part, the president seemed to indicate that nothing but logistical concerns stood between UT and domestic partner benefits, making it possible that it is only a matter of time until the details are worked out and DPB can come to UT.
Vaughn gave few specifics, essentially reiterating his human resources director’s message from last week: that UT was looking into domestic partner benefits.
Such benefits are typically associated with giving same-sex couples the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. However, depending on how the phrase is defined, they can also be applied to unmarried heterosexual couples.
“As stated before, the University must carefully analyze each benefit request as well as existing benefit dynamics,” the president wrote. “We care about the well being of the University community and are trying to do what is best for our employees as a whole as well as the institution.”
THE ROAD AHEAD
Now that the benefits survey is done, the next step is benchmarking benefits at other universities, Vaughn said.
“We are also doing research to monitor qualifications for domestic partner benefit privileges under current federal and state law as well as reviewing questions, problems, costs and related issues on various benefits,” he continued. “We cannot recommend any benefit change without thoroughly looking at many issues and considerations.”
Vaughn’s email seemed to point to logistical questions holding up domestic partner benefits. But as important as what he said was what he didn’t say. He still hasn’t addressed whether he thinks-either as president or as a human being-whether such benefits should be offered at UT.
After The Minaret’s series on DPB last week and a corresponding scathing editorial against administrative delays, the president had meetings last Friday with provost Janet McNew and senate president Evan Chipouras.
In his letter to the paper, he emphasized that he did not cancel a meeting on domestic partner benefits or refuse to meet with senate representatives.
“Scheduling has simply been difficult for all parties,” he wrote. “Alternative dates were offered and continue to be explored by the Senate leadership.”
STUDENTS SUPPORT COVERAGE
An unscientific online Minaret poll this week asked readers, “Do you agree with the Minaret’s decision to publicly air the domestic partner benefits battle?”
Nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated that “UT needs DPB and it’s about time somebody brought this in the open.” Similarly, almost a quarter said, “Yes, for them or against them, it’s a debate that needs to occur publicly.
Nine percent disagreed, indicating, “I’m not so sure, calling the administration out on the issue might be a step backwards for DPB.”
Meanwhile, only one person said he or she was for DPB, but not publicizing the battle because “It’s divisive to our university’s image”
And only one person indicated said they were against DPB.
STUDENTS OFFER DPB OPINIONS
Most UT students said they were unfamiliar with the domestic partner benefits issue, but once they were told about the topic, a majority said it’s a matter of equal rights.
“It just reminds me of the civil rights movement. People didn’t move too fast because they didn’t want to shake things up too much; they didn’t want to make people uncomfortable. That never helps anyone; you have to jump on things to make things right,” said Nicole Robinson. “It’s not fair. Everyone is not getting the right treatment.”
“Gays and lesbians have the right to get the same benefits as everyone else,” Sarah Kenton said.
“If you dedicate your life to someone, you should be treated as their spouse in all legal matters,” added sophomore Caitlin Doyle.
“I am all for giving benefits to people who are in domestic partnerships,” said Breanna Ondich, a UT sophomore who has gay friends and family. “Domestic partnerships in all aspects should have the same life benefits as marriage.”
Like Ondich, Dustin Delatore knows gay people, and that influences his stance.
“Since my advisor is gay, I say ok,” the senior said.
COMMITMENT
Jeanette Nicewinter, a sophomore, said the university should give the same benefits to those in domestic partnerships as to married couples.
“They decided to share their lives together, and made a commitment to each other,” she said. “They deserve just as much as other people, despite their sexual orientation.”
But opponents to domestic partner benefits say they wonder how couples will be able to prove their commitment, if not through marriage, which is illegal for Florida’s same-sex couples.
“If the state isn’t recognizing them as a couple, then the school shouldn’t either,” sophomore Nikkia Johnson said.
Other students said sharing a household or income should suffice.
“They share an income; it’s stupid that the University does not let them share anything else,” said Shannon McKiernan.
FRAUD
“I would support (DPB) if they were legally married, and I support gay marriage,” said Katie Kreiger. “But not if people could just do it for the benefits.”
Others worried that mere cohabitation could lead to benefits.
“If they’re married by common law then yes, of course!” said sophomore Ana Ruggeri. “But I could live with you. Should I get benefits? No. We can’t just dish them out.”
Many universities and even corporations simply have their employees sign affidavits declaring the relationship.
DPB proponents say that in order to commit fraud, heterosexual couples can easily get married in order to secure benefits.
That’s happened in the past. In other words, marriage is no fool-proof or fraud-proof institution, they argue.
“If there is a written agreement, then yeah I’m all for it,” said junior Javier Cumerma. “There is really no other way of telling if anyone will stay together or not. Marriage, on the other hand, binds people for life.”
Cumerma added that there should be a minimum of three or four years before people should be able to receive these benefits, but proponents say there is no mandatory wait period on heterosexual marriage and that divorce rates prove marriage is not often “til death do them part.”
Opponents still say domestic partnerships are less stable than marriages.
Other students said DPB should not be a part of the campus community for moral reasons.
“I don’t believe that homosexual relationships are right,” said Jason Lenon, “and they shouldn’t be treated the same as marriage.”
DONOR/ALUMNUS SPEAKS OUT
David Hanson, a donor and former Vaughn advisee, sent a letter to the editor this week chastising the university for not offering DPB. Now a vice president at Emory University, Hanson sent the letter to Vaughn and key administrators/faculty. His partner also graduated from UT, having served as president of the National Alumni Association and most recently as the alumni representative on the Board of Trustees.
Hanson’s letter can be read here
Related Stories:
President and Faculty Battle Over Domestic Partner Benefits
Faculty Question Benefits Survey’s Methodology, Results
Overview of Domestic Partner Benefits in South Florida Colleges
Editorial: Lack of Progressive Initiatives Leaves UT in a Time Warp