JUDGING BY the amount of space on the front page of this newspaper given to the article with the headline "Council calls for [domestic partner] benefits in resolution" (Feb. 8), you might have thought that something new and extraordinary had happened. The juxtaposition of an imposing picture of Student Council President Jequeatta Upton added even more gravitas, giving the casual reader the impression that Council was not only on top of the issue but taking decisive progressive action. Most students would probably be surprised to learn that this recent resolution is hardly the groundbreaking action it seems and is also a variation on a familiar unsettling theme: Student Council being unable to follow through with its major initiatives.
The issue of same-sex domestic partner benefits first entered the University spotlight back in 2004 with the appearance of the Web site DontgivetoUVA.com. The Web site urged donors to withhold funds until the University changed its prohibitory stance on the issue. Later that school year, a group of students placed a referendum on the ballot for the spring elections to vote whether or not the University should extend those health benefits. When the referendum passed with an overwhelming 74 percent of the vote, its proponents hoped that a clear message had been sent to the Board of Visitors. Daisy Lundy, the Student Council president at the time, said, "The referendum allowed students who wanted their voices to be heard the opportunity to be heard." And then, nothing happened.
Fast-forward to 2006. Now instead of a student referendum supporting same-sex domestic partner benefits, a Student Council resolution is passed that purports to do exactly the same thing. Very few at this University would consider this a step in the wrong direction. However, the appropriate question to ask now is whether Student Council is willing to ensure that this step actually leads anywhere.
Admittedly, the task is a daunting one. In 2004, only three days after the passage of the student referendum, Virginia's General Assembly passed HB 751, the Affirmation of Marriage Act, which prohibited any organization in the state from providing these sorts of benefits. Thus, by passing this resolution, Student Council has committed itself to supporting an action that is, for now, illegal.This has implications, and in light of past experience, it's not clear that Council is prepared to deal with them.
The first and most obvious of these implications is that the Council's bold statement is entirely meaningless unless it is committed to using its resources to appeal or amend the offending bill. Evidence of such sentiment is scarce since HB 751 is not even mentioned in the nebulous wording of the Council resolution. But even if we give Council the benefit of the doubt and assume that by passing this resolution they are actually demonstrating their intent to work towards changing the law, there remain further consequences for how they must go about their attempts to do so.
Following the resolution's passage, this newspaper quoted Queer Student Union President Kevin Wu as saying, "The Board of Visitors views the Student Council as a representative of the student voice. This [sends] a very powerful message to those who can enact change." Sound familiar? This highlights the mistaken presumption -- one perhaps exacerbated by the hoopla with which we surround our student government --that the mere act of passing a resolution has any meaningful impact on the power brokers at this University and elsewhere in the state.
Student Council College Rep. Anne Bautista, the resolution's sponsor, recognized that additional action was needed. However, she stressed that "there's a need to show that there's a desire for these benefits among students. In order for the General Assembly to take us seriously, they need to see the support." Unfortunately, Student Council's efforts at moving beyond this support-building stage have not been stellar, even when their efforts have been directed at a body less imposing than a state legislature. Last semester, Newsweek pointed out how our Student Council and similar bodies at other institutions had passed resolutions urging that students from Tulane be allowed to transfer to their host schools, only to be flatly ignored by their respective administrations.
If Council is serious about this issue, the only solution is to take direct action in the form of organizing efforts to lobby Richmond for the repeal or amendment of HB 751.There are many groups on Grounds that would be more than delighted to cooperate with them, with the QSU and Queer and Allied Activism at the front of the line. It may be argued that such actions are not appropriate for Council to take based on the role it plays in the University community, but if so, Council should never have passed a resolution it was not prepared to carry through.
I do not say that Council's efforts should be considered a failure unless they repeal the law. But unless we would like to be rereading the same headlines in 2008 about how supportive they are of this issue, they need a plan of action and they need it now.
A.J. Kornblith's column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at akornblith@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
