Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

June 22, 2000

Chancellor will consider group to study same-sex benefits

Chancellor Mark Nordenberg says he will consider a recent Faculty Assembly proposal urging creation of a joint committee to study how Pitt might extend health benefits to its employees' same-sex partners.

But according to Nordenberg, two major impediments stand in the way of the open discussion that Assembly members seek on the issue:

* Opposition to same-sex benefits by some state lawmakers, who have threatened to cut Pitt's funding if it extends health coverage to gay and lesbian partners.

* The ongoing lawsuit against the University by seven of its current and former employees, who allege that Pitt violates its own anti-discrimination policy as well as the city's anti-discrimination law in denying health benefits to same-sex partners.

In April, an Allegheny County Common Pleas Court judge granted Pitt's request for a temporary injunction, suspending Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission proceedings in the case. But the University's victory did not end the litigation, Nordenberg reminded Senate Council on June 12.

See related story in this issue.

Is the chancellor ruling out creation of the proposed joint committee of faculty, administrators and trustees until the lawsuit is over?

"I'm not going to offer any odds," Nordenberg said after the Council meeting. "I've made my statement. I think the litigation is a major impediment to engaging in the kind of free and open dialogue that the [Senate's anti-discriminatory policies] committee is seeking."

It was the anti-discriminatory policies committee that originally proposed the joint committee idea. Faculty Assembly endorsed the proposal earlier this month.

Assembly members cited the precedent of a similar ad hoc committee that addressed Pitt's policy on South Africa-related investments. Nordenberg himself served on that committee. "I did see good come out of that process then," he told Senate Council, "but I also know that what can happen…is shaped to a considerable extent by the environment in which that discussion takes place."

He compared Pitt's situation with that of Carnegie Mellon University. In May, CMU's governing board voted to extend same-sex health benefits. But unlike Pitt, Carnegie Mellon is a private institution that's not as answerable to state lawmakers, and CMU was not sued over the issue. Even without those complications, Nordenberg noted, CMU's decision came only after four years of discussions.

Nordenberg said: "There is a simplistic way of looking at the CMU example that sometimes surfaces in comments and conversation. And that is, basically: 'They're good people at CMU, and they know what they're doing. And they're bad people at Pitt, and they don't know what they're doing.' And if that's the way you size up the situation, there is no sense in engaging in a conversation."

Locally, it was Pitt that, in 1993, first offered limited same-sex employee benefits, including bereavement leave and library borrowing privileges, Nordenberg pointed out.

"When that happened, the reactions of those opposed to such benefits were quite predictable," the chancellor said. "That is, there were some unhappy donors. There were some unhappy legislators. We took some lumps.

"What was less predictable was the reaction of those who would have favored that step. And that is, we got sued. Because even though we had taken a step and even though we had taken it earlier, we had not gone far enough [according to those who sued Pitt]. Over the course of the last four years — the entire period when Carnegie Mellon has been free to engage in reasoned, private, unimpeded discussion — we have been actively defending ourselves in litigation."

Anti-discriminatory policies committee chairperson Anne Medsger noted that leading U.S. auto manufacturers recently announced they will provide same-sex health benefits. "Across the country, in every sector, there is a public groundswell of support for same-sex health benefits," she claimed.

At this month's Faculty Assembly meeting, several professors said Pitt's position on the issue is damaging the University's reputation and recruitment efforts.

But Nordenberg said: "When I'm out in the world, I'm very sensitive to the position that you advanced, and that has been advanced by others — that the institutional reputation is suffering. I need to say that I don't get those kinds of reactions. Instead, far more frequently, the views expressed to me are views of, oh, sadness and some disbelief at the tactics that have been employed to advance the cause [of same-sex benefits] here."

Those tactics have included a well-publicized hunger strike last year and the recent picketing of the Squirrel Hill Eat'n Park. The target of the latter protest was trustee Suzanne Broadhurst, the restaurant chain's director of corporate giving.

Nordenberg said that, to his knowledge, such tactics have not been used at institutions that have granted same-sex health benefits. Nor are they being employed at other institutions still wrestling with the issue, he said.

The chancellor suggested that faculty "who have some impact and influence with respect to the litigation" use their influence "where appropriate" to have the lawsuit dropped.

Medsger said her committee views the same-sex health benefits issue as complex and not a question of good versus bad. "But one of our concerns is that there is no forum, no arena where we can begin to understand the position of the administration and Board of Trustees," she said. "We have no indication of the board's position on this issue.

"In the face of that silence, we are at a loss. There is no dialogue and it is our concern, our intent and our hope that there could be some forum or mechanism whereby we could have dialogue and we could together work on this issue rather than continue this divisive atmosphere."

— Bruce Steele


Leave a Reply