From: sbgreene@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Steven Greene)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Stanford press release on domestic partners (Part 2)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:10:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster


        'Quaint and old-fashioned'

        Acknowledging that he would "seem quaint and old-fashioned,"
Professor Bradley Efron, statistics, opened the debate saying the proposal
made him "uneasy."
        Efron said he had no doubts about the subcommittee's report,
which he labeled "excellent," but said he opposed having the senate involved in
the issue. He said senators are "called advisers, but the sponsors seek us out
as a pressure group." Allowing the senate to play an advocacy role is
"irresponsible," he said.
        He also questioned who would pay the cost of extending benefits.
The deliberations "would be more honest" if the faculty knew how much they
would have to pay, he said.
        Disagreeing with Efron, Professor Ronald Rebholz, chairman of
English, said "this body ought to advocate" adoption of the policy.
        The issue is one of "moral importance," Rebholz said, relating to
the "civil rights and discrimination against some of us who have been
discriminated against for a lifetime."
        Rebholz said that the proposal should be accepted if it would
move the university in the direction of greater equity and if it meets the test
of financial feasibility. He said it seemed likely that the costs would be 
comparable to those covering spouses and children.
        Rebholz said the proposal should be approved "with passion, with
enthusiasm, with strong endorsement so the president hears the message and
heeds the message, and presents the case as forcefully as possible to the
trustees."
        Professor Richard Tsien, molecular and cellular physiology, said
he supported the policy. The feeling that they are being discriminated against
is "disabling" to part of the Stanford community, he said. Tsien chairs the
Medical School's panel on diversity.

        Revamp benefits

        Economist John Shoven, director of the Center for Economic
Policy Research, said he valued Stanford's "open and pluralistic community,"
but would vote against the resolution because the university "shouldn't be in
the position of certifying unmarried relationships."
        Extending benefits to same-sex partners but not opposite-sex
partners would be discriminatory, he said. And the new policy would open the
door to other demands, such as the addition of parents, he said.
        The best solution, he suggested, would be to offer a cafeteria-style
plan where employees could divide their benefit dollars among various choices.
        Such a plan would not necessarily cost more, Shoven said.
        Under a cafeteria plan, employees without children, for example,
could put more dollars into medical benefits for partners or other relatives 
since they do not need the tuition-grant program.
        Economics Professor Paul David said the subcommittee made a
"persuasive case that the university should extend benefits," but he joined
Shoven in preferring a more radical reorganization of benefits programs rather
than the solution proposed.
        "Where should we stop?" David asked, suggesting that other
groups "could claim preferential treatment."
        Professor Myra Strober, education, warned that industry experts
say cafeteria-style benefits are "extremely complex" to implement. She said the
proposal should not be defeated in favor of studying wholesale changes in the
benefits structure.
        Rebholz said cafeteria-style benefits might have helped him with
parents, but would have been too expensive for the university.

        Sanctity of marriage

        Professor David Abernethy, political science, said he was in the
difficult and contradictory position of wanting to include same-sex couples but
also maintain marriage as a criterion for benefits. This would affirm the
importance of marriage in sanctifying relationships, he said.
        He said he would like to see a legally sanctioned marriage for
same-sex couples, but pending that change, would want to verify that both
members of a same-sex partnership envisage themselves as married if that
option were available.
        He also suggested that the university "ratchet down" the domestic
partner rules for students, so that heterosexual student couples would have to
be married to be eligible for the benefit.
        Since fall 1990, students have had the option of declaring
themselves to be domestic partners. Of 99 couples who so declared this fall and
are living together in campus housing, only six couples are same-sex partners.
        Senate Steering Committee member Terry Karl said the
committee's decision to include opposite-sex couples in the resolution was not
intended to undercut the argument for same-sex couples.
        She said that she wanted to see Stanford "in the lead" in stopping
discriminatory practices and that enacting the policy would ultimately help the
university in faculty and staff recruitment and retention.
        She said most faculty and staff work with colleagues who do not
receive the same benefits as they do. That is "deeply troubling," she said.
        The discussion of marriage and moral values made her nervous,
she said. "I feel a little bit like I did watching the Republican Convention."
The discussion should focus on issue of discrimination and university 
excellence, she said.
        After the vote, Senate Chair William Northway, diagnostic
radiology, announced that the Steering Committee would suggest that Casper
and others try to make the student domestic-partners policy more similar to that
of faculty and staff, if it is approved. The student policy does not require 
that partners assume financial responsibility for each other. Northway pointed
out that tuition costs complicate the issue for students.
        -kb-
Newsgroups: soc.motss