PSU needs same-sex partner benefits

Several weeks ago in the "ask@psu.edu" column of Penn State's Intercom, an internal communications medium published for the faculty and staff by the University's Department of Public Information, this question appeared: "Why doesn't Penn State offer benefits to same-sex partners of faculty/staff?"

The answer was, "At this point, the University hasn't determined a need for change as it relates to benefits for same-sex domestic partners."

The Commission for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equity would like to suggest that a need for change does exist when all employees of the University are not treated equitably.

The issue of whether or not to extend the same health care and other benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Penn State lesbian, gay and bisexual employees as are available to the spouses of heterosexual employees has been under formal discussion since 1993.

Cost is frequently cited as a major barrier, and yet a report completed by Human Resources in 1996 estimated the additional expense involved in doing this at less than one-half of 1 percent of the University's current health care costs for its employees. In real dollars, that translates to slightly less than $250,000.

The University's Commission on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equity considers the absence of domestic partner benefits to be, first and foremost, a question of salary equity. The non-discrimination policy states: "The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admissions and employment . . . The Pennsylvania State University does not discriminate against any person because of . . . sexual orientation . . ."

Added to the salaries of married heterosexual employees, the value of benefits results in a very real pay inequity when compared to the remuneration for lesbian, gay, or bisexual employees in committed domestic partnerships.

This inequity has no basis in work performance, experience, or level of professional qualifications.

Frequently questions are asked about how a domestic partnership would be defined. Many same-sex partnerships are the functional equivalents of marriage.

In fact, most institutions and corporations that provide domestic partner benefits require employees who wish to obtain benefits for his/her partner to sign an affidavit attesting to such things as: the length of the relationship, being mutually responsible for each other's welfare, not being married to anyone else, being more than 18 years of age, etc.

In addition, documentary proof of mutual financial commitment is required (joint home mortgage or lease, joint bank account, naming one another as beneficiaries of insurance policies, etc.).

Penn State does not require such proof for opposite-sex unmarried partners, but they must sign an affidavit of common law marriage. Pennsylvania has no minimum time requirement for living together to establish such a marriage.

The second question related to this issue is Penn State's competitiveness in hiring and retaining qualified staff and faculty, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Currently, five Big Ten institutions provide health insurance for same-sex domestic partners; at another, the faculty senate has recommended the addition of benefits.

All Ivy League institutions either offer, or are in the process of implementing health benefits for domestic partners. A recent article in USA Today (Jan. 24) said that 10 percent of corporations now offer partner benefits. Among these are IBM, Microsoft, Xerox, Disney, Coors Brewery, American Express, Levi Strauss, Ben and Jerry's, American Association of University Professors, National Public Radio and Barnes and Noble in its "super stores."

A doctoral dissertation completed in 1996 at Penn State found that the prevalence of affirming organizational policies (e.g. statements of non-discrimination and existence of health benefits) was associated positively with organizational climate for lesbian and gay employees.

The result was higher job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment and career efficacy for those employees.

A third question concerns the kind of workplace model that Penn State presents for its students. Many Penn State graduates will work in corporations and institutions that provide domestic partner benefits to their lesbian and gay employees.

These workplaces, a number of them Fortune 500 companies, and small and large colleges and universities, have taken an important step toward eliminating intolerance and harassment by changing their policies to affirm the value of multiple definitions of "family."

Rather than teaching its students by example to value and respect diversity in all its dimensions, Penn State, through its reluctance to take such a step, sends these students a clear message about the University's stance on equity and its climate for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees.

One of the mission statements of the University is: "To foster a caring University community that provides leadership for constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world."

A sub-goal following that statement says, "Penn State's working environment will value civility and acceptance of increased cultural diversity and sensitivity." In the recent survey report, "Penn State As a Community of Learning", only 23 percent of the faculty responding felt that "caring" was a characteristic that "fit" Penn State.

"Caring community" was defined as ". . . a place where the well-being of each member is sensitively supported. . . " Obviously the low response was not based exclusively on the lack of health benefits for same-sex domestic partners, but that certainly represents an area in which sensitive support could be improved.

There is a need for the University to change its policies in regard to same-sex domestic partner benefits in order to fully achieve its mission -- providing employment equity, being a contemporary institutional model for its employees and students, and humanizing the University are the supporting rationale.

Marilyn Eastridge
chair of the Domestic Partner Benefits Committee of the Commission for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equity

Morris Weinstock
chair of the Commission for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equity