We are all in debt to professor Uri Horesh for calling attention to UT's backward thinking regarding same-sex spouse benefits. The best private schools have same-sex spouse benefits, as do most of the top public universities we consider our peers. Our failure to offer equal benefits to gay and lesbian employees is morally indefensible, but in a more practical vein, it undermines our ability to attract and retain top talent.
An example: Several years ago, my department had a faculty vacancy. I called a promising young professor at another institution to invite her to apply. No sooner had I conveyed the purpose of my call that she asked, "Does UT offer same-sex spouse benefits?" To my embarrassed "no," she replied, "Then we have nothing to talk about." I explained that we might be able to negotiate a bigger salary that would allow her partner to purchase private medical insurance. "My partner is a man to whom I am married," she replied. "The problem is that I refuse to make common cause with a bigoted school. Sorry, I don't do Texas."
While I reject her glib characterization of UT and the state of Texas, one could hear similar stories in departments across campus of distinguished scholars who refuse to come to or remain at UT. The reason is simple: Talented gay people have better options elsewhere.
Of course, some might argue that the University doesn't need gay faculty, but such a position fails to recognize the fragility of academic departments. Often the difference between great and so-so departments is only two or three key people. Top scholars are not fungible. They cannot be replaced by the next person in line. Gay scholars hold a significant place in academia, and right now UT is ill-equipped to attract them to our faculty.
Future generations will undoubtedly consider Texas' current repudiation of equal rights for gay people as appalling as its rejection of equal rights for Hispanics and African Americans back in the dark days of Jim Crow. But the UT administration does not have time to wait if it really wants UT to become the top public university in the country.
Though I enjoyed the drama of professor Horesh's confrontation with the UT administration, I hated the denouement. It was not pleasant seeing a brave individual such as Horesh having to back down, or seeing fair-minded and decent people such as Linda Millstone and Gregory Vincent having to defend UT's retrograde and destructive position because "it's the law."
Even worse, the confrontation forced both parties to embrace sterile positions. A more productive discussion would have sought a way to do what's right for same-sex couples while not violating Texas law or provoking a dispute with the regents, the legislature or those self-anointed religious guardians of everyone else's business.
UT should discard the notion of spousal benefits altogether. Rather, it should embrace an "employee-plus-one" arrangement that would allow each UT employee access to UT benefits programs. This person could be a son or daughter too old to qualify for UT benefits; he or she could be a friend, a roommate or a legally wedded spouse. Widely used by corporations and other universities, such plans never raise the question of whether the additional person is a spouse. In this fashion, UT could meet some of the needs of same-sex couples without violating Texas law. This would make our university a better place. It would make us more competitive in recruiting the best talent. It would give new substance to our commitment to diversity. And it would mean that professor Horesh's brave gesture would not have been in vain.
Shumway is a Spanish language and literature professor and the interim chair of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese.
Be the first to comment on this article!