The following is a statement by President Mark A. Murray about employee insurance benefits, issued December 21, 2001:
A request has been made to implement domestic partner benefits at GrandValley State University. There are some variants proposed about how suchbenefits would be implemented (e.g. all domestic partners, or only same-sexdomestic partners), but the central issue is whether employees of Grand Valleywho are in committed relationships with same-sex partners will be able to enrolltheir partners in the group health care plans at Grand Valley under provisionscurrently available to employees who are married.
Some organizations have implemented such benefits because they believe it iscritical to their ability to be effective in the labor market, or because it isviewed as a matter of equity, or for both reasons. Other organizations have notimplemented such benefits. In Michigan, some public universities offer domesticpartner benefits. Others do not. In our region, among public higher educationinstitutions, Grand Rapids Community College, Muskegon Community College, FerrisState University and Western Michigan University do not offer such benefits.
The advocates of this issue present many arguments. Among them are: (1) Thisis a matter of basic justice. Those committed to same-sex partners should havethe same rights and privileges of employment as do those who are married. Todeny an individual the ability to provide health care to their partner is tounjustly discriminate against those who are gay or lesbian. (2) This is acentral issue about status and place in the organization. It is riskyprofessionally and personally to be gay or lesbian as a student, staff orfaculty member at Grand Valley. By offering domestic partner benefits, GrandValley would help gays and lesbians achieve respect in their professional andpersonal activities on campus. (3) It is critical for Grand Valley to offersuch benefits if it is to achieve its educational goals because many talentedfaculty will not consider Grand Valley if it does not offer such benefits. Somewill be individuals who are themselves gays or lesbians who will find better joboffers. Others will be those who would not take advantage of such benefitspersonally, but believe that failure to offer such benefits is evidence of anatmosphere that is unattractive as a place to work.
The opponents present many arguments as well. Among them are: (1) GrandValley is a public tax-supported institution. While a private employer maychoose to offer such benefits, it is inappropriate for a public institution tooffer such benefits when at its heart this is an issue about the nature of thefamily. It should be debated in other venues such as the Michigan legislatureor local municipal government. (2) West Michigan is a more conservative regionthan other parts of the state and to offer such benefits would be out of stepwith the predominant values of key supporters of this institution in thelegislature and other sectors. (3) Same-sex relationships are not the same asmarriage and to support the concept of parity is a blow against the specialstatus of marriage. The accumulated impact of such actions is to weaken familylife.
In my communications with proponents and opponents of domestic partnerbenefits, there is little question that this is an issue of considerable passionfor both sides. In only a few instances, proponents and opponents resorted todemeaning labels that dismiss the legitimacy or sincerity of individuals whohold an opposite point of view. In virtually all cases, the passion was evidentin respectful, thoughtful and energetic statements of views.
President Emeritus Lubbers considered implementing domestic partner benefitsat Grand Valley. His final review of this issue was that it was not appropriateto implement domestic partner benefits at Grand Valley at this time. He askedthat a committee be formed to review this issue and to meet with the incomingpresident. I have met with representatives of the group on two occasions. Allmembers of the committee with whom I met were advocates for implementingdomestic partner benefits.
I believe it is fair to say that within the university itself, amongstudents, staff and faculty a sizable majority are in favor of implementingdomestic partner benefits. The student senate and faculty senate passedresolutions in favor of implementing benefits, and some individual academicunits and divisions passed resolutions in favor of implementing the benefits. Ihave heard from faculty, staff and students on both sides of the issue, but morevoices support implementing domestic partner benefits.
I believe that any decision made at Grand Valley must be based on aforthright view of what is best for the institution. Our primary mission iseducation of those who enroll at Grand Valley. To accomplish this missionrequires attracting and retaining a high-quality staff and faculty and creatinga community of learning so that our students can successfully complete theircourse of studies.
As a public university, our ability to do this is dependent on offeringhigh-quality instruction and having the resources to continue to support ourcore mission. In the course of my review of this issue, I have come to the sameconclusion as President Emeritus Lubbers. Implementation of domestic partnerbenefits is not, on balance, in the best interest of Grand Valley StateUniversity.
I do not believe that offering such a benefit is essential to theinstitution's capacity to attract and retain a high-quality faculty and staff. I also do not believe that offering such benefits is a matter of basic justice. Unquestionably, some among our faculty would directly participate in such abenefit were it to be offered. The numbers would not be large, and, as aresult, extension of benefits would be unlikely to be a significant financialburden.
I believe that offering domestic partner benefits would be contrary to theviews of many key constituencies who have supported this institution in itsgrowth and development and will be key to its future success. Many parents ofcurrent and prospective students oppose the extension of such benefits. As apublic university, we depend on state funding and we need vigorous legislativesupport to achieve equitable funding. As a university that has benefited fromvery generous support from the private philanthropic community, we mustrecognize the prevailing views of those who provide such support. To offer suchbenefits would be to place Grand Valley State University out of step with manyof those who will be critical to the continued growth and development of theinstitution.
The issue of domestic partner benefits is currently a key focus of an overallissue of the status of gays and lesbians in this and other communities. Thisoverall issue of status has many other dimensions in addition to domesticpartner benefits. While I do not believe it is a matter of basic justice toprovide domestic partner benefits, I do believe it is a matter of basic justicethat members of the gay and lesbian community be afforded full personal respectat Grand Valley as they engage in all aspects of community life. Just as istrue of any member of the Grand Valley community, gay and lesbian studentsshould be accorded full dignity and respect as they engage in their studies, andgay and lesbian faculty and staff should be accorded full dignity and respect asthey engage in their professional activities. Harassment and ostracizingbehavior toward gays and lesbians have no place at Grand Valley. I will supportactivities at Grand Valley that help ensure the respect and well being of gayand lesbian students, staff and faculty.
The issue of parity of committed same-sex relationships to heterosexualmarriage is subject of much debate. It is occurring within many businesses,non-profit organizations, churches and units of government. As President of apublic university in Michigan, my responsibility is to make decisions that Ibelieve are in the best interests of this University. Having done so, Irecognize that this topic is likely to be a subject of active debate in theyears ahead. I believe that all voices - both proponents and opponents ofparity between committed same-sex relationships and heterosexual marriage shouldbe heard respectfully on this campus and in our larger community. Attitudes andbeliefs regarding this issue are likely to remain in contention in the yearsahead. I remind the community, however, that regardless of attitude or belief,behaviors on campus must accord to all members of this community full respectand dignity.
