The Montana Tech Faculty Senate wishes to protest Commissioner Crofts' decision, unanimously ratified by the Board of Regents at its May 2000 meeting in Kalispell, to deny same-sex domestic partner benefits to gay employees of the Montana University System. We consider this decision politically-driven, as well as contrary to the commitment to social justice and embracing of diversity that traditionally have been hallmarks of higher education.

In public comments, the commissioner and Regents defended the decision by claiming that extending benefits to same-sex partners would increase costs for current beneficiaries of the plan. However, the Inter Unit Benefits Committee (IUBC), a MUS group composed of a range of representatives from every campus in the system, concluded in its memo recommending same sex partner benefits that: "According to the information furnished [by]...our insurance consultant, it is unlikely that there would be any adverse fiscal impact to the group insurance plan if the decision were made to allow coverage of same-sex domestic partners." The Senate urges the CHE and BOR to provide data documenting exactly why it rejected the conclusion reached by IUBC's consultant. Moreover, given that MUS employee benefits have steadily shrunk over the last several years (e.g., deductibles, along with copayments for prescription drugs, have risen; certain types of coverage have been dropped, etc.), we are skeptical when--following a proposal to extend benefits to gays--the CHE and BOR suddenly display such concern for current clients of the plan.

The Senate has closely reviewed IUBC's "Sample Declaration of Domestic Partnership," and was impressed by the extensive requirements it would impose on any gay couple seeking benefits--requirements which almost surely would thwart any attempt to defraud the system. The sample form demands that such couples must provide evidence of, e.g., joint mortgage or tenancy on a residential lease; joint bank accounts; joint liabilities (e.g., credit cards, car loans); joint ownership of significant property (e.g., cars), etc. Applicants must also name "each other as primary beneficiary in wills, life insurance policies or retirement annuities," and must enclose "written agreements...showing mutual support obligations or joint ownership of assets acquired during the relationship". Clearly, the requirements for eligibility would be no less rigorous than those required of heterosexual couples. Moreover, if one argues against granting benefits because same-sex couples aren't legally married, this view overlooks the reality that Montana gays are prevented from marrying by state and federal law (unfairly, in our opinion). Even more importantly, such an argument ignores the fact that unmarried, i.e. common-law, heterosexual couples (so long as they meet eligibility standards) can receive benefits under the current MUS plan. How can such an obvious double standard be defended?

In the second and third points of IUBC'S proposal, the committee admits that granting such benefits risks "the possibility of adverse political consequences from the state legislature" (though IUBC maintains that it's not its role "to weigh...political implications"). Frankly, the Senate's suspects that the main (though unacknowledged) reason for the CHE and BOR's rejection of IUBC'S recommendation is essentially political. Clearly, the current Republican majority in Helena is staunchly anti-gay. To cite one especially notorious example, when, several years ago, a Republican legislator proposed demanding that homosexuals, along with child molesters, officially register when they move into new Montana communities (since gay sex between consenting adults was then prohibited by Montana's anti-sodomy laws, later found unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court), this vile bill--which the legislator in question defended by claiming that homosexuality was worse than pedophilia--passed both houses before being vetoed by Governor Racicot.

In short, given this political climate, and given the legislature's extended and chronic underfunding of the MUS (despite the fact that the state has repeatedly enjoyed budget surpluses), it would hardly be surprising if the CHE and BOR have pragmatically concluded that discriminating against gay MUS employees is preferable to further endangering MUS funding by rectifying inequitable policies. Of course, the CHE and BOR cannot afford simply to ignore pragmatic political considerations. At the very least, however, if the commissioner and Regents' motives are truly political, it seems only honest to say so. Still more importantly, Tech's Senate believes that such amoral pragmatism clashes sharply with basic ethical principles (in this case, the obligation to extend to minorities the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority) upon which higher education in our democratic society is supposed to be founded.

In the AP article noted above, an unnamed BOR member commented that "the request seemed to be coming from just the Missoula campus and to make a system wide change for the sake of one campus was not in the best interest of the entire system". We hope this letter will be seen as evidence that, on the contrary, support for this proposal is not found exclusively at UM. Tech's Senate urges faculty groups at other MUS units, as well as individual professors in the system, to join our struggle to win approval for IUBC'S just and compassionate recommendation.

Sincerely,

The Montana Tech Faculty Senate
Fall 1999 - Spring 2000