Some relatively recent stories and notices in The Daily Collegian concerning the grievances and activities of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community at Penn State deserve a second look from the Penn State community. Those in the administration with the clout to address these developments should take the time to consider what messages they send when they do not offer replies.

First, there is the issue of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Student Alliance's refusal to schedule further Straight Talks until the talks are coordinated through a new University office that would address the educational needs of the University regarding lesbian and gay issues.

I am not talking about the University "promoting" gay values over a more "Christian" morality. Morality is not the issue. Instead, I am pointing to the ignorance that too many people harbor regarding lesbian and gay people. Such ignorance promotes violence in some and fear in others. Frankly, any university worthy of the name exists to squelch ignorance.

If Penn State has the responsibility to enlighten and to protect its students, faculty and staff, shouldn't those with the means be doing everything in their power to meet that obligation? When you don't, what messages are you really sending?

Second, there is the issue of equal benefits for domestic partners. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are denied their right to marry and so our partners are denied the legal status of spouse. Hence, our partners are denied the benefits that non-gay employees' spouses get. Our children are meant to suffer the consequences when one parent is ill or injured and out of work and the other is panicked in trying to meet the bills.

Benefits such as health care, life insurance, long-term disability and retirement programs -- all of these and more are either denied outright or are of questionable status for the partners of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees.

This is an issue regarding the relationship between an employer and employees. All we are concerned with is trying to protect our families in the same way that non-gay faculty, staff, and employees are trying to protect theirs. All the University should be concerned with is the recruitment, retention, and equal treatment of all its employees. In denying these benefits, what messages are you really sending?

Finally, there is the issue of "family" housing. Currently, unless you are legally married (and in this state, common law marriages are legal and easy) you cannot live in Penn State's family housing. Neither in this case nor in the case of benefits is anyone asked to prove he or she is married -- with rare exception, no documents are needed.

A man and a woman who say they are spouses are assumed to be married and are permitted to live in family housing. But two men or two women who say they are spouses are denied family housing because they are not married. Until this University recognizes that family does not mean heterosexual man and woman, the University is discriminating against lesbian and gay people and is in violation of their own affirmative action policy. In doing so, what messages are you really sending?

I don't need to give you the statistics comparing Penn State to other schools in the Big Ten and elsewhere for you to know that, like in so many other ways, with the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people we are playing catch-up. Penn State -- think about the messages you are really sending and then do the right thing by bringing your actions into line with your published policies.