ARCHIVE - September, 2001

Sanctioning Discrimination
Bud Coleman, Department of Theater and Dance

On Thursday 6 September 2001, the CU Regents met to consider a domestic partner benefits bill, co-authored by Regents Susan Kirk and Robert Sievers. In brief, the bill would add "domestic partners" and "domestic partners' dependent children" as categories of persons eligible for enrollment in the University of Colorado health care plans. The term "domestic partnership" is defined as two unmarried adults who are financially interdependent, are competent to contract, are not related by blood to a degree that would bar marriage in Colorado, and have shared a principal residence for more than one year. A domestic partner may not claim more than one partner.

To establish enrollment eligibility under this proposal, University employees/retirees and their domestic partners would be required to submit either: (1) a Certificate of Domestic Partnership from the City of Boulder, or (2) a Certificate of Committed Partnership from the City and County of Denver. Click here for a complete text of the Sievers / Kirk bill.

When the vote was called, Regents Kirk, Jim Martin, Gail Schwartz, and Sievers voted for the measure, while Regents Tom Lucero, Norwood Robb, Jerry Rutledge, and Peter Steinhauer voted no. Board chair Maureen Ediger, chose not to break a 4-4 tie – the chair's prerogative under parliamentary procedure – thus killing the measure. While there was talk before the vote about morality, lifestyles, special rights, and homophobia, the tenor of the conversation missed the point. Regents Ediger, Lucero, Robb, Rutledge, and Steinhauer chose not to implement domestic partner benefits, thus putting the university in an untenable position, that of sanctioning discrimination.

The non-discrimination policy of the University of Colorado prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status. Currently, a CU employee (staff or faculty) who is legally married is eligible for a more extensive benefit package than an employee who is not legally married to their partner (regardless of the sex of that partner). This is discrimination. The Regents are not empowered to pick and choose which items in CU's nondiscrimination policy they wish to enforce. If Regents Ediger, Lucero, Robb, Rutledge, and Steinhauer cannot, or will not, uphold all of the rules, regulations, and policies of CU, they should resign. Now.

The vote revealed a startling lack of continuity from Regents Ediger and Steinhauer. Earlier in the year they joined Regents Kirk, Martin, Schwartz, and Sievers in voting to include sexual orientation in CU's nondiscrimination policy. Yet, on 6 September 2001, Regents Ediger and Steinhauer did not vote to extend domestic partner benefits to staff and faculty. They had the fortitude to talk the talk, but not the strength to walk the walk. If Regents Ediger and Steinhauer do not have the resolve to put the words of CU's nondiscrimination policy into action, they should resign. Now.

However, Regents Ediger and Steinhauer could rectify their inconsistency by co-authoring the next Domestic Partner Benefit bill. Now. The Regents of the University of Colorado must provide equal benefits to all of its employees, regardless of their marital status and/or their sexual orientation. Now. "The time is always right to do what is right." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

IN THIS ISSUE:

The opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors, and do not represent those of the Boulder Faculty Assembly, CU faculty at large, or the University of Colorado.

Responses to these articles are welcome. We are developing our capacity to collect responses on-line. In the meantime, please send your comments via e-mail to Thomas.Mayer@Colorado.edu.

Click here for the names and contact information of the membership of the BFA Communications Committee.