Chancellor Silber and some Board of Trustees members should have at least responded to a letter from 277 faculty and staff asking Boston University to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause and to provide benefits for domestic partnerships. These actions would promote acceptance and equality for homosexuals and benefit the university community. Since the letter-writing technique failed to make the administration see this, Equality at BU should now gather support from students to help facilitate change.
Not responding to the letter exemplifies how one of this school’s biggest problems is the administration’s refusal to create an open atmosphere by responding to and encouraging debate or suggestions. The 277 signatories represent about 3 percent of all faculty and staff here, which is a significant number, especially considering how little publicity the campaign seemed to have and how rare it is for such a large number of faculty to speak out in unison. However, administrators made an appalling decision to simply blow the demands off instead of carefully considering them. Even if Silber and the trustees did not agree, they should have acknowledged and responded to the letter, especially because the faculty and staff made reasonable requests.
Offering benefits to domestic partners would improve the quality of life for the university’s homosexual employees. It could also help with recruiting since gay professors probably consider whether employers extend heath care and other benefits to domestic partners. Giving homosexuals in committed relationships the same benefits as married couples is one more step toward ensuring that people receive equal treatment and status regardless of their sexual orientation. Silber’s claim that BU cannot afford to do so merely hides behind current economic woes rather than actually addressing the issue since BU finds money for married couples’ benefits and could work on finding money next year or the year after. The difficulty in defining qualifying partnerships is an example of a much more valid excuse (although it still could be overcome if the university was truly interested in promoting equality and happy employees).
Silber also failed to provide adequate explanation for refusing to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause. By saying that complaints must surface first, Silber ignored the clause’s largely symbolic effect. Homosexuals simply want the same recognition of protection other groups receive, and just two words could show BU’s acceptance of gays and easily satisfy one demand both students and faculty have asked for.
Unfortunately, Silber has yet to agree with these opinions and will not make these changes unless further action occurs. Those who have worked for these changes in the past and currently believe in them must work together to gather support and speak out. While the administration apparently feels it can ignore 277 people, it might listen to a larger and more vocal number. Equality at BU should work with students, including Spectrum, which has been remarkably quiet since its proposal concerning the non-discrimination clause was rejected by Westling. The entire BU community would benefit from having happier professors and a more welcoming environment even if it takes a few words and a few dollars.