University Times

THE CHANCELLOR'S COLUMN

(Editor's note: This column was first published in the Dec. 5, 1999, issue of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

The University of Pittsburgh has been an important part of this community for well over 200 years. Throughout its history, it has provided the people of this region with special opportunities to pursue their life's dreams through education. It is an institution that provides an open, caring and supportive environment to literally tens of thousands of individuals each and every day.

Nonetheless, for the past three years, the University has been forced to defend itself in an increasingly acrimonious action before the Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission. That proceeding was brought by a former writing instructor, since joined by others, who contends that the city's human relations act required Pitt to provide health insurance benefits to her same-sex domestic partner. In a recent editorial on the issue, the Post-Gazette stated: "[W]e do not believe that the city's gay rights ordinance requires companies to provide the same benefits to domestic partners that they provide to spouses…." That is precisely the position that has been consistently advanced by the University over the long course of this proceeding.

That the Post-Gazette's editorial board would hold this view is not surprising. That view, after all, is embedded in the newspaper's own benefits policies. It similarly is reflected in the policies of every college and university in western Pennsylvania, every state-owned or state-related college and university in Pennsylvania, most of the colleges and universities in America — particularly those that are public, and most of this region's other employers.

Like Pitt, these employers provide health insurance benefits to their employees, without regard to sexual orientation, as well as to spouses and dependent children. Like Pitt, these employers do not extend health insurance benefits to unmarried domestic partners, whether they are of the same sex or of the opposite sex. And, as is true at Pitt, the use by these employers of marriage as one of the defining features of a benefits program is lawful and non-discriminatory. Unfortunately, though given the chance to do so, the Human Relations Commission declined to address this threshold legal issue.

Last month, however, another governing body — the very body from which the Human Relations Commission derives its own authority — decided to take more timely action. The elected members of the Pennsylvania legislature passed a bill exempting state-owned and state-related colleges and universities from the application of local ordinances requiring, or having the effect of requiring, the provision of health care benefits. In explaining the governor's decision to sign that legislation, his press secretary said: "State government does not offer same-sex benefits to its employees. And we do not think it is appropriate for a local government to require a state-related university to contradict that policy."

It should be noted that the employee benefits area is one in which the preemption of local laws is the rule rather than the exception. For most employees in Pittsburgh and across the nation, in fact, benefits questions are governed exclusively by federal law, with local governments having absolutely no role to play. Moreover, since the commonwealth annually invests well over $1 billion in its state-owned and state-related colleges and universities and has consistently expressed a strong interest in the policy issues so publicly and contentiously raised in this proceeding, it should have surprised no one that the legislature would choose to intercede.

When it did, the result was a narrowly crafted law. Despite initial reporting that was just plain wrong, the provision does not ban same-sex health benefits. In fact, unlike earlier bills, it does not purport to punish institutions that provide them. Instead, it prohibits local governments from requiring that such benefits be provided by state-owned or state-related colleges and universities. It is especially important to note that the new law addresses only this one narrow issue — leaving in place all of the other human relations protections that had been placed at risk when this proceeding was initiated.

Though there already are signs of further legal maneuvering, this act should bring the pending proceeding to an overdue end. Certainly, from everything that has been written since its passage, there can be little doubt that this is what the legislature intended. And when the Post-Gazette editorial argued that social issues of this type should be openly addressed within the framework of the democratic processes available in Harrisburg, it also was seconding a position long advanced by the University.

When all is said and done, the claims advanced against Pitt boil down to this: An employer relying upon marriage as a defining feature of its benefits plan, our opponents argue, is guilty of discrimination because, under the laws of the Commonwealth, only heterosexual couples can marry. Since that is their basic contention, no matter what other gloss they attempt to add to their claims, the most appropriate forum to pursue change is the Pennsylvania General Assembly, not the Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission. Perhaps the elimination of this litigation will be the first step in re-directing the debate to that more appropriate forum.

Just over three decades ago, the commonwealth embraced the University of Pittsburgh as a state-related institution and provide the infusion of funds that rescued us from bankruptcy. In the intervening years, our partnership has matured, and we have grown stronger together. Today, Pitt is this region's major provider of high quality higher education, a national center of pioneering research, a source of countless forums of invaluable public service, and one of the principal engines of Pennsylvania's new economy.

Pitt also is an institution that cares deeply about its people. We are pleased that the region's most diverse student body has chose us as their academic home. We are grateful for the many contributions that continue to be made by the members of our faculty and staff – who, again, reflect the full spectrum of diversity, just as they possess the broadest possible array of human talents. We applaud the many accomplishments of our graduates, some 70,000 of whom live and work right here in Allegheny County, with others making important contributions in virtually every worthy field of human endeavor in other pars of Pennsylvania and around the world.

Throughout this controversy, some have attempted to make the availability of same-sex benefits a litmus test of institutional humanity. Fortunately, most people – even many of those for whom this a very significant issue – realize that there is far more involved in establishing and maintaining an environment of inclusion and diversity. They also recognize that Pitt is an institution that has done, and continues to do, great good for a broad range of people. A caring and open environment has played a prominent role in our proud past, and it will continue to be an important element of the exciting future we now are in the process of building.