HRC mediation continues in Rainbow Alliance complaint
Mediation has yet to resolve the Rainbow Alliance student group’s complaint that Pitt’s policy on the use of gender-specific campus facilities violates the city’s antidiscrimination ordinance.
The Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations has stood by its initial finding of probable cause for the Rainbow Alliance’s complaint, despite the University’s request that the commission reverse its decision and close the case. (See Oct. 24, 2013, University Times.)
Tara Pfeifer of the Women’s Law Project, counsel for the Rainbow Alliance, which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, acknowledged that a mediation session earlier this month failed to yield a solution to the dispute, which has been before the commission for more than two years.
In April 2012 the Rainbow Alliance filed its complaint with the Pittsburgh human relations commission, alleging that Pitt’s requirement that students use facilities that align with the sex listed on their birth certificate discriminated against transgender and gender-nonconforming people. (See May 3, 2012, University Times.)
In an accompanying release, the group stated: “These procedures create an unsafe and hostile environment for transgender students, forcing them into dorms, locker rooms and, most notably, bathrooms that are incompatible with the gender with which they identify. Forcing students into these improper facilities forces them to endure the threat of discomfort, harassment, bullying and, possibly, violence.”
Pitt has since clarified that individuals may use the restroom that aligns with their gender identity. A statement posted online in May 2013 as part of Student Affairs’ LGBTQA information pages reads: “The University trusts that members of the campus community and their guests will exercise sound judgment and discretion when accessing and using the restrooms,” and lists gender-neutral “single-use” restroom locations on campus. (www.studentaffairs.pitt.edu/lgbtqa/singleuserestrooms)
Ken Service, Pitt’s vice chancellor for communications, said that the University has tried to balance the interests of all students in addressing the Rainbow Alliance’s concerns.
However, he said privacy is a concern when it comes to allowing access to community showers and locker rooms based on the gender with which an individual identifies. “Some of the Rainbow Alliance demands relating to the use of locker rooms and showers are not consistent with the privacy interests of all students and require the balancing of those interests before a resolution can be reached,” he said.
Service told the University Times: “Over the past few years, we have endeavored, whenever appropriate, to accommodate the concerns brought to our attention by this student group. In fact, specific changes that have evolved as a result of this dialogue have included increasing the availability of single-use restrooms and locker rooms throughout campus, and dedicating portions of the Student Life and Student Health web links to identifying University resources dedicated exclusively to the LGBTQA community.
“We disagree with some of the other changes sought by the Rainbow Alliance, particularly those relating to locker rooms and showers.”
Pitt’s nondiscrimination policy (Policy 07-01-03) was amended in 2008 to prohibit discrimination based on “gender identity and expression” in accord with the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance. (See Sept. 25, 2008, University Times.)
The policy, which states that “the University prohibits and will not engage in discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, genetic information, disability or status as a veteran,” reflects the University’s commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all members of its community, Service said.
“In maintaining that inclusive environment, the University must consider the interests and concerns of all members of the University community, especially its students,” he said, adding that the policy and related practices “are consistent with, and in many cases more inclusive than, those at other leading American higher education institutions.”
*
If the University and the Rainbow Alliance cannot reach an agreement, a public hearing will be held, with a ruling and an order to follow from the commission. Where a violation of the law is found, the commission must bring the party into compliance, remedy any harm and institute remedial measures. Both sides then would have 30 days to either comply or appeal to the Court of Common Pleas.
No additional discussion sessions on the Rainbow Alliance complaint have been scheduled, nor has a public hearing been set. “It’s still an active case with confidential discussions going on,” Rainbow Alliance counsel Pfeifer told the University Times.
“Obviously both parties are actively participating in the commission’s process. We haven’t been able to come to a meeting of the minds. We’re still trying.”
—Kimberly K. Barlow