James Blake, the bus driver who made Rosa Parks give up her bus seat in 1955, was acting within the law. But as history reveals, stepping outside legal boundaries is necessary in combating civil injustice, and disobedience has, at times, been the only true way to leave a lasting legacy of progress.
Arabic Lecturer Uri Horesh, who began a hunger strike Monday in response to the University's non-discrimination policy, reminded Gregory Vincent of Parks' Montgomery, Ala. movement Wednesday in a meeting between the two to discuss UT's exclusion of health benefits for same-sex couples.
"If you were the bus driver, would you have let her sit there?" Horesh asked Vincent, UT's vice president for diversity and community engagement. This was the first encounter between the two since Vincent denied a formal complaint Horesh submitted to the University in November. Vincent upholds that the Texas Legislature, not the University, is in control of the provision of domestic partner benefits,and that it would be a violation of state law if UT were to provide health insurance to same-sex partners.
Vincent didn't provide a "yes" or a "no" answer to Horesh's question of whether Vincent would let Rosa Parks keep her seat on the bus. He did a rather good job, though, of avoiding "yes's" and "no's" during both his meeting with Horesh and a Wednesday interview with The Daily Texan.
"First of all, I wouldn't have been the bus driver," Vincent said. "That being said, as an official of the state, I am charged with upholding the law of the state."
Vincent may be following the rules of the state, but the rules of morality dictate otherwise. He's correct in saying he's not the bus driver (a keen avoidance of the question that illuminates his years of experience as a lawyer). But as someone who holds both strategic and operational authority over diversity and inclusion issues at one of the largest universities in the nation, Vincent holds much more power than that. He's also right on when he says he's up against a stringent state policy that defines marriage as a union between a woman and a man. But Vincent is facing an issue that's bigger than UT and even the state of Texas, one of bigotry which lies deep in our society. Sometimes it takes a one-man show, such as Parks or Horesh, to stir attention or set the agenda for change. We applaud Horesh in his brave struggle, and he needs widespread support (especially from high-raking officials responsible for promoting diversity) in order for change to ensue.
Vincent says his office has been working for several months with the UT Pride and Equity Faculty and Staff Association (PEFSA) to gather information in order to move forward on the issue of domestic partner benefits, and action is long overdue. UT should be a leader in this movement just like other universities, such as Georgetown University and the University of Michigan. Georgetown refers to a partner as a "legally domiciled adult," and Michigan this month implemented a new category of dependent called "other qualifying adult," which is not gender-specific.
We can only hope the Division of Diversity and Communication and PEFSA, in their discovery process, are truly making great strides toward creating a similar alternative policy here at UT, but we need to see results before claiming confidence in this effort. Plus, we're a little confused about PEFSA's progress. PEFSA member Gail Goodman, the associate director of Liberal Arts Career Services, said Wednesday that "great things are happening" in working with Vincent's office to tackle this issue. But PEFSA co-director Dana Cloud, a communications studies professor, expressed a less promising sentiment in a Firing Line sent to The Daily Texan Wednesday, calling UT "among the most backward of our peer institutions of higher learning."
It's time for UT officials to quit citing state law as an excuse for not taking action at the university level. Just as Parks showed us in 1955 and Horesh reaffirmed Wednesday: We shouldn't defend an unjust law just because it's a law. Despite obstacles that come with our state and federal government's refusal to afford universal rights, the University still has a non-discrimination policy to uphold, one that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We believe UT is in violation of this policy and should consider editing it for clarity.
- C.H.
Be the first to comment on this article!