Statement of President Arend D. Lubbers
¿
¿
During the past several years there have been many discussions on our campus regarding equity. I strongly hold the view that Grand Valley State University must create and support an atmosphere that is hospitable to all of our faculty, staff and students.
One issue that has been raised in the context of equity is that of domestic partner benefits. Eight of Michigan's fifteen public universities offer insurance benefits to domestic partners of faculty and staff. Some weeks ago, I reached the conclusion that GVSU should join those institutions by offering a similar benefit here next year. I did not announce a plan nor issue a directive. But somehow my intentions became known to The Grand Rapids Press, which asked me to confirm that I had a plan under consideration. I did so and last week's news stories on the subject were the result.
In the days since these stories appeared, it has become apparent to me that this issue is one that deeply divides, even more than I had anticipated. I have spoken individually to the members of our Board of Control, and given the atmosphere, the Board and I believe that now is not the time for me to take action. This may be a small point, but it is an important one ¿ I have nothing to cancel or withdraw, because I had not taken any action, beyond what started out as some private expressions of my intentions.
The way in which this story emerged ¿ announced by the media and not by the University - is not how things usually happen at Grand Valley. This premature airing denied me the opportunity to communicate my reasoning in advance to the many constituencies of the university whose support is necessary if such a proposal is to be accepted. When emotion dictates the atmosphere, it is time to step back.
It's also clear that west Michigan is different from other parts of the state. I do not know of any Grand Rapids-based employers that offer domestic partner benefits.
Nevertheless, this issue is one that will continue to be visible and frankly, I suspect that domestic partner benefits are inevitable. But that time is not now.
To be candid about it I had hoped that in my last year I could take action and avoid a controversy for my successor. Things haven't exactly worked out that way. So, it will fall to a future president ¿ and the development of a community consensus ¿ to put this issue to rest.
¿
¿
September 25, 2000
