Chancellor John Silber’s reasons for not granting domestic partnership benefits to faculty and staff and not changing university’s anti-discrimination policy are faulty, according to several Boston University faculty and staff members.
In a March 17 Daily Free Press article, Silber resisted the requests of Equality at BU, an organization comprised of 60 faculty and staff members, saying that offering domestic partnership benefits would be too expensive and that there is no need to alter the university’s anti-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation because it is already protected under state law.
BU spokesman Kevin Carleton estimated the new benefits would cost the university up to $1 million per year. Silber also said former BU president Jon Westling’s answer to a number of groups with similar requests two years ago was adequate, making a response to the faculty effort unnecessary.
Equality at BU organizers said faculty and staff who signed the letter would be unwilling to speak, saying ‘there is a lot of fear.’ But several faculty and staff signatories did speak last week.
According to Mitchell Alcrim, an employee at the Mugar Library, Silber’s excuses for not responding to Equality at BU and 217 other faculty, ‘are just a cop-out.’
‘It is well known how [Silber] feels about homosexuals,’ Alcrim said. ‘[Silber] clearly doesn’t support the cause.’
Signatories were especially aggravated with Silber’s excuse for not changing the university’s anti-discrimination policy, saying that if it is already protected, then there is no harm in adding it.
‘He says that he is not adding the clause because it is already covered, but if it already covered then why not add it?’ said Karen Caldwell, a coordinator of academic services from the School of Public Health.
Many other faculty and staff members had the same attitude: if state law protects against discrimination because of sexual orientation, why not submit to the signatories’ requests and add the clause?
Alcrim also thought that Silber’s argument lacks support because other groups not in the university’s anti-discrimination clause are protected in state law.
Although none of the faculty or staff members interviewed said they had witnessed or been victim to discrimination within the university because of sexual orientation, the clause is important as a ‘precautionary measure’ and domestic partnership benefits would give the university a competitive advantage.
‘[Changing the policy and adding benefits] would upkeep with the university’s history as a leader in civil rights for women, African Americans and Native Americans,’ said Mark Krone, manager of graduate admissions of the College of Fine Arts. ‘There have been many firsts for those groups and the university sticks out for not doing so with homosexuality.’
‘The university needs to step up to the plate,’ said Brad Peloquin, director of admissions at School of Music. ‘BU is competing against other great schools in the Boston area for faculty and one has to ponder if not giving domestic partnership benefits to its employees puts BU at a disadvantage.’
Peloquin also added that offering domestic partnership benefits ‘helps with recruitment.’
Most of the people interviewed did understand that the university’s financial situation may make it hard to add domestic partnership benefits, but some questioned if BU’s contention that adding such benefits would cost up to $1 million is accurate.
‘I know studies at comparable companies, such as Xerox, instituted [about how much adding domestic partnership benefits would cost] and found little financial impact,’ said Peloquin. ‘What is more important are the benefits the university would have if they offered them.’
Russell Cooper, an economics professor in the College of Arts and Sciences, was not aware of the letters sent to Silber, but said he ‘probably would have signed it’ had he seen it. However, he does understand Silber’s financial concern for giving domestic partnership benefits.
‘I can understand that the benefits would be expensive, and the university is short on cash,’ he said.
Cooper saw no reason not to add the clause, and thought that the university’s suggestion to not go to the office of the personnel instead of Silber was incorrect.
‘The university runs in a top-down manner,’ he said ‘If something about the university needs to be changed, going through Silber’s office is the only way to get action.’
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
