Page 2

Mich. partner benefits upheld

In a case watched closely by AFT higher education unions in Michigan, a judge has upheld the right of public employers to provide same-sex benefits to their employees, despite the passage last year of a ballot initiative stipulating that the state would recognize marriage only as the union of a man and a woman.

That amendment to the state constitution passed on Election Day 2004. In March 2005, the state attorney general announced that the city of Kalamazoo must stop providing same-sex partner benefits to its employees. Rather than fighting that order, the city sought a judicial opinion on the legality of offering the benefits.

Many other interested parties joined in the city’s request, including the University of Michigan, Wayne State University and the United Auto Workers. In their amicus briefs, the universities argued that being free to provide benefits is vital to their ability to attract the best and the brightest faculty.

In her decision, Judge Joyce Draganchuk ruled that the ban on same-sex marriages does not prohibit public employers from entering into contractual agreements with employees to provide domestic partner benefits.

 Healthcare benefits are not a statutory right of marriage, she said. “An individual does not receive healthcare benefits for his or her spouse as a matter of legal right upon getting married.” Rather, they come as a result of an employer’s decision or as part of a negotiated contract:

“Healthcare benefits for a spouse are benefits of employment, not benefits of marriage.”

Furthermore, she added, while a marriage can be ended only through a legal proceeding, health benefits end simply upon severance from a job.

Guarding against the wrong 'Bill of Rights'

Another clutch of university presidents has pledged to toe the line and monitor what is said in the classroom, one way to avoid passage of an Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR). The presidents of eight Ohio universities signed a Resolution on Academic Rights and Responsibilities in October, endorsing “intellectual pluralism,” an open, tolerant, civil environment, grading uninfluenced by political opinion, and respect for institutional discretion and autonomy.

Agreements like Ohio’s are becoming a popular way for institutions to avoid ABOR, an attempt to legislate equal consideration of all views in the classroom and flush out perceived liberal bias. The legislation has been roundly criticized for chaining faculty to content requirements, sanitizing pedagogy and creating an environment in which teachers fear they will offend students with opinions that, in a stimulating academic setting, should challenge them into critical thinking. But even independent agreements are hazardous, as they can limit faculty autonomy in the classroom and squelch freedom of expression.

Other states where institutions have signed or are considering agreements to maintain “academic freedom” include Colorado, where university presidents signed a memo of understanding and agreed to report regularly to the legislature, and New York, where trustees are considering a similar resolution.

In Pennsylvania, ABOR has taken an unexpected tack. Instead of targeting individual faculty members and their classrooms, Thomas Stevenson, chair of the House Select Committee on Students’ Academic Freedom, focuses on the institutions themselves. Stevenson says he will not engage in a witch hunt, but plans to steer colleges and universities toward policies protecting constitutional rights as well as academic freedom. The Temple Association of University Professionals has worked tirelessly on this issue, sponsoring a teach-in featuring Ellen Schrecker, author and expert on academic freedom, and select committee member Larry Curry, who has supported TAUP’s efforts in the statehouse.

In Florida, the United Faculty of Florida expects ABOR to rise again after the union helped defeat it last year. Union membership has swelled with faculty concerned over legislation they fear could chill academic discourse and scare distinguished colleagues away from the state. UFF’s most recent tactic involves a two-sided membership form, with one side for membership information and the other for legislative action.

New York is also watchful of ABOR, but has not been troubled by legislative threats. Instead, it is focused on the state board of trustees, which is considering an agreement similar to those in Colorado and Ohio. Such an agreement is unnecessary, say union leaders: A recent State University of New York poll revealed zero formal complaints from students who felt persecuted for their political views. “Not only do we not have any problems, but we also have a mechanism if we had problems to make sure this is all taken care of,” says Fred Floss, co-vice president of United University Professions/AFT at SUNY. As UUP president and AFT vice president William Scheuerman says, ABOR “is a solution in search of a problem.”