RECENTLY there's been a lot of talk about the "Good Ol' Song," and specifically the "not gay" chant that often surrounds it. The Saturday over Thanksgiving, when I attended the Virginia Tech game, I was very pleased every time we scored a touchdown -- not just because it meant we wouldn't be shamed on our home field, but also because I heard a distinct lack of echo after a certain verse. My mind sufficiently pacified on that count, it was free to wander on to other issues. Which it soon did.
Regardless of how many times we sing it, (so my mind thought) Virginia is currently not the land where "all is bright and gay," at least in the more modern sense of the word. Last year, Virginia passed an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that is one of the most restrictive to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the nation. Not only does the amendment contain the usual "marriage is between a man and a woman" lingo, it goes on to state, "This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." Amidst all this homophobia, it would be really nice if the University could set a worthy precedent and come out strongly supporting LGBTQ rights. But even that, right now, seems too much to ask.
The University could start becoming a more welcoming environment for the LGBTQ communities if it chose to provide domestic partner benefits to employees. As the name implies, domestic partner benefits allow for recognition and benefits for people employers consider to be partners but who, for one reason or another, are not their legal spouses.
One of the most significant benefits these partners are currently missing out on is health care. Currently, under the University's health care plan, the legal spouse and children of a worker receive coverage. Partners, on the other hand, do not.
Another crucial issue is retirement. If a University worker dies before they are able to retire, their spouse and children qualify for their retirement benefits. Again, the same is not true for partners, or any children they were raising who were not recognized as legally theirs. Partners might not stand to receive any retirement money, or, if they do, they will be required to pay a heavy tax on it.
"Not having DPBs severely diminishes the University's ability to draw top-notch faculty to our departments," Minority Rights Coalition Co-Chair Wyatt Fore said. "In addition, many faculty that are already here are actively searching for jobs elsewhere because it simply is too expensive to have to pay health care costs out-of-pocket for their loved ones."
Recently the University tried to remedy this a bit, and did choose to provide one benefit for partners recognized as spouses -- gym membership, with the new rule that employees can elect a partner or friend to receive gym membership. Now, after years of fighting, partners can proudly hold up their gym membership and think of all the great steps forward we are taking as they pedal away on the elliptical.
Benefits beyond those provided by the gym, such as health care and access to retirement funds, are essential for a worker's family, regardless of whether that family is recognized as such by the strict regulations of the Commonwealth. University President John T. Casteen III recently released the Commission on the University's Future, which contains no mention of any plans to begin offering domestic partner benefits. Offering these benefits would not be a hugely innovative, shocking or new move for the University by any means.
Currently the University is one of three of the colleges ranked in U.S. News and World Report's top 25 that does not give out such benefits. The other two are Georgetown and Notre Dame, which are specifically forbidden by the Vatican. So, I've got to wonder, what's our excuse?
While one could argue that it would be difficult for the University to implement DPB's because of Virginia's law, it seems to me that providing health benefits to partners is not the same as approximating the design of marriage. Last time I checked, health benefits or retirement funds were nowhere in marriage vows.
It was nice to stand at a football game and not have the urge to smack the drunk person next to me as they happily yelled out "not gay!" But it would be even nicer to see actual rights given to LGBTQ members of the University community. After all, we all know the old adage, it's time we took it up. Actions speak louder than words.
Margaret Sessa-Hawkins's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at msessahawkins@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 16 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 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 | 6 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.
