UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER REPORT of the CHANCELLOR'S TASK FORCE on GAY, LESBIAN, AND BISEXUAL ISSUES June 1993 James N. Corbridge, Jr. Chancellor Regent Hall Campus Box 17 University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0017#012#Chancellor's Task Force on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues Suzanne Ageton Human Relations Commission City of Boulder David Burton Head Athletic Trainer Intercollegiate Athletics Emily Calhoun Professor School of Law Deborah Flick Senior Instructor Women Studies Illana Zhenya Gallon Student Sr. Word Processing Operator Institute of Behavioral Science Michell Irving Lieutenant CU Police Department Christof Kheim Student Tri-Executive University of Colorado Student Union Scott Klitzke Student School of Law Michael Mills Student National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marguerite Moritz Associate Professor School of Journalism and Mass Communication Gene Nichol (Chair) Dean School of Law Karen Raforth University Psychologist Counseling and Career Services: A Multicultural Center Ephraim Schechter Senior Researcher Office of Research and Information Charles Sweet Associate University Counsel Office of the Vice President and University Counsel Garnett Tatum Director Affirmative Action and Services Department of Human Resources Constance Williams Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Office of the Chancellor#012# Contents Introduction University Non-Discrimination Policies The Campus Climate for Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Harassment and Personal Abuse Employment Discrimination Recommendations 1. Administrative and Faculty Leadership 2. Harassment and Personal Vilification Policies 3. Implementation and Reporting 4. Education 5. University Support Services for Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals 6. Discriminatory Institutional Policies at CU Conclusion#012# Introduction In May, 1992, Chancellor James Corbridge announced the creation of a Task Force on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Chancellor Corbridge charged the Task Force to examine the campus climate for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals and to make recommendations for improvement. The Task Force was comprised of fifteen members, drawn from a variety of segments of the University community--three students, three faculty, five staff members, one university officer, and representatives of the CU Athletic Department, the CU Police Department, and the Human Relations Commission of the City of Boulder. Members of the committee have expertise in law, psychology, public policy, personnel, and a variety of fields related to the Chancellor's charge. The Task Force held limited organizational meetings over the summer of 1992. It then met on a weekly or bi-weekly basis throughout the entire 1992-93 academic year. The Task Force sought information from an array of sources. It solicited written comments--in response to a widely-published flier--from the entire student body. Students, faculty, staff, university administrators, campus and city police, local government officials, gay and lesbian leaders and activists, representatives of campus religious organizations, representatives from other academic and civic institutions, and others having important perspectives presented testimony before the committee. On occasion, it was necessary to ensure anonymity to those providing testimony. A 1991 Sexual Orientation Survey-- directed to faculty and staff--was reviewed.[1] Committee members also drew upon national and local survey information as well as reports received from other universities. In November, 1992--approximately two months into the Task Force's deliberations--the voters of Colorado passed Amendment Two. This measure, enacted through the initiative process, prohibits any Colorado entity from enacting or enforcing any policy that prohibits discrimination based on homosexual sexual orientation. The passage of Amendment Two altered the Task Force's work in two ways. First, the committee devoted some time to debating whether it would be appropriate to expend further efforts and resources developing specific non-discrimination policy proposals. Second, the Task Force was required to address a limited number of immediate concerns resulting from post- election tensions on campus. Essentially, however, the Task Force limited its efforts to the Chancellor's principal charge--to study the Boulder campus climate for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals and to make suggestions to improve it. The following report represents the conclusions and recommendations of the Chancellor's Task Force. #012# I University Non-Discrimination Policies In early 1992, the University of Colorado Board of Regents adopted a policy mandating that ". . . qualifications for the position and institutional need shall be the sole basis" for hiring, evaluating, and retaining university employees. Approximately one year later, a similar policy was adopted concerning university students. Although these provisions fail to mention sexual orientation, they were both promulgated in response to a variety of efforts to extend university non- discrimination policies to include sexual orientation. Since they prohibit making employment and student evaluation decisions on the basis of extraneous and irrelevant factors, the policies have been reasonably understood as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Consistent with these policies, President Judith Albino issued a statement in response to the passage of Amendment Two making it clear that the "University of Colorado will be ever vigilant in maintaining a learning community of persons committed to tolerance, diversity and respect for the individual. There simply should be no doubt that the basic human rights of every member of this community--including gays, lesbians and bisexuals--should be protected by . . . the policies of our most important public institutions." Similarly, Chancellor Corbridge formally indicated that "our policy is straightforward: the Boulder campus does not tolerate discrimination of any kind . . . against any member of the University community. . . . It is our obligation to treat each other--faculty, staff and students, including those who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual--with understanding, dignity, respect and compassion. Without these qualities, we fail our very purpose." It is no doubt true that these policy statements reveal what has at times appeared to be an unfortunate ambiguity concerning the University's commitment to its gay, lesbian, and bisexual members. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, and given the possible strictures of Amendment Two, the Task Force has concluded that discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, faculty, and staff is prohibited by the rules and policies of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The University's non- discrimination policies should be stated boldly and without reservation. The policies, as well, should be widely disseminated and the highest ranking officials of the University should signal that the policies are taken seriously and will be vigilantly enforced.#012# II The Campus Climate for Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals The Task Force sought evidence of the Boulder campus climate primarily by interviewing dozens of witnesses who agreed to come forward, frequently in confidence, to testify about their experiences at the campus. These discussions revealed serious and extremely troubling incidents of harassment, abuse, and discrimination. Reports indicated as well that the victims of such actions too frequently felt unsupported by the University or unable to seek meaningful redress through University channels. These conclusions were corroborated by the results of an open- ended questionnaire directed by the Task Force to UCB students.[2] The committee also relied on the results of the 1991 Sexual Orientation Survey of Boulder campus faculty and staff. Each of these sources revealed consistent patterns of behavior that seriously impair the campus climate for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals at the University of Colorado at Boulder. A. HARASSMENT AND PERSONAL ABUSE Several students reported verbal harassment of a disturbing nature. One indicated that she had been followed across campus by a group of four young men who repeatedly called her "dyke" and said, several times, "we know where you live, you fucking dyke." Another student was told "fags deserve to die of AIDS." A fraternity house was reported to have posted a banner declaring "no fags allowed." Anti-gay graffiti has been placed on the dormitory doors of gay students. One respondent received a phone message, using her name, indicating that the caller was looking forward to the victim dying of AIDS. Yet another was explicitly threatened with death. The Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community Alliance receives threatening telephone calls routinely. Witnesses testified that an African-American lesbian was "outed" by her roommate--who apparently read pages in her diary. The student then suffered multiple incidents of harassment in the dormitory by both women and men. She was physically attacked as well, being pushed down a set of stairs. Her request to transfer to another dormitory was reportedly delayed. When the transfer was accomplished, she was also harassed in the second dorm. After this saga, she left the University. Task Force members also received detailed and helpful information from the University of Colorado Police Department-- whose records of sexual orientation harassment and intimidation are far superior to those of the City of Boulder.[3] CU Police reports revealed numerous instances of unacceptable behavior. Campus police reported approximately a dozen serious campus intimidation/harassment incidents in the previous twelve months. The Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay Community Alliance received several bomb threats. (One call was traced to a CU dormitory.) One student was approached in the UMC fountain area and told "fags like you deserve to die of AIDS." Another student urinated on a gay student's dormitory room door because the victim was homosexual. Fliers were distributed in a student election concerning a candidate's sexual orientation. President Albino herself was threatened by a reported "soldier of God" who indicated that if the President spoke at a "fag rally" on campus, she "would be murdered." (The President spoke at the gay and lesbian studies conference but was forced to wear a bullet-proof vest.) A message was left for Chancellor Corbridge calling him a "traitor for kissing the asses of niggers and queers." Moreover, vocal advocates of gay and lesbian interests are frequent targets of abuse. An openly-gay Tri-Executive (and member of the Task Force) received a telephone message saying "you're dead, you faggot." Another student received a letter saying that the "killing of queers will soon be the norm" in response to the publication of a letter to the editor in a local paper. A third student received a threatening postcard after his name appeared in a campus news report dealing with gay issues. It is, of course, unlikely that the impact of events like these is lost on 18-23 year-old students struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality. Such episodes dramatically increase stress, put students at increased risk emotionally and physically, and, of course, impede meaningful access to the academy. Left unchallenged, they harm the intellectual, moral and emotional atmosphere for all students. "Injustice anywhere," as has been said, "is a threat to justice everywhere." In short, the responses to the Task Force questionnaire, like the anecdotal responses to the 1991 Sexual Orientation Survey and reports of the CU Police Department and various witnesses, reveal that the University of Colorado at Boulder can be a hostile and intimidating environment for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. The report of the Study Committee on the Status of Lesbians and Gay Men completed at the University of Michigan in 1991 summarized research on the harassment of gay and lesbian students at four major universities (Michigan, Yale, Rutgers, and Pennsylvania State). It concluded that "among the gay, lesbian, and bisexual students surveyed at these institutions, one in twenty had been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation; 16-25% had been threatened with violence, and 55-72% had been harassed verbally." A recent study conducted at the University of Oregon showed similar results--61% of the gay and lesbian students surveyed said that they feared for their safety and 54% reported that they had been harassed or threatened.[4] The testimony presented to the Task Force reveals similar problems at the University of Colorado at Boulder. This level of harassment--or even the potential for harassment --is usually not encountered by other members of the University community. Gay and lesbian faculty, students and staff frequently cope with such acts of intolerance by hiding their own sexuality --by pretending to most or all others to be heterosexual. This move toward invisibility may well protect the closeted individuals from harassment and violations of privacy. But for many, it comes at a high cost both personally and professionally. Concealment exacts a heavy toll--leading a double life, denying one's deepest emotions, distorting relations with others, constantly worrying about exposure. Undergraduates are typically at a developmental stage in which they are learning to accept themselves as sexual beings. This process, which is always difficult, is especially daunting in a hostile environment.[5] (One staff member, for example, indicated that she interrupted her university education for many years because of the negative campus atmosphere and the absence of counterbalancing information about lesbian and gay people.) If, on the other hand, students are open about their sexual orientation, they may well be forced to limit participation in campus life or to undergo other hardships. Victims of harassment reported lost sleep, inability to attend classes, altered schedules, withdrawal from campus social events, etc. This is not the type of atmosphere that we seek to foster. Several points should be made about such reported episodes of intimidation, vilification and harassment. First, not all lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals at the University of Colorado report incidents of abuse. Some homosexual students reported to the Task Force that they had experienced neither discrimination nor harassment since coming to the University. Nevertheless, witnesses testified that, like other potential victims of attack, they consistently alter their behaviors and restrict their activities as the result of the possibilities for abuse. It is very likely that all or almost all gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are strongly affected in their daily lives by the potential for abuse from other faculty, students, or staff. Second, it is clear that harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is massively underreported. Homosexual people frequently fail to report abuse, and they do so for a variety of reasons. First, they fear reprisal or retaliation, as is often the case with victims of attack. Second, one witness testified that he refused to report a death threat because recounting the trauma made it seem even more real to him--an injury that he remained unable to face psychologically. Third, gay people frequently are concerned that they will be "outed" as a result of filing a complaint. Fourth, victims of harassment often distrust the administrators and other officials with whom such reports are to be filed. Finally, lesbians and gay men all too often become resigned to their fates--assuming that they will be harassed repeatedly and that nothing will be done about it. This underreporting phenomenon was confirmed by a variety of witnesses who testified before the Task Force. The director of the Denver-based Anti-Violence Project revealed that 75% of the victims who report sexual orientation harassment to the project do not report to the police. The director of University Housing indicated that the harassment of gays is on the increase in CU dormitories and that it is less likely to be reported than other forms of intimidation or abuse. The director of Boulder's Human Rights Office stated that many complaints originally pursued under the City's sexual orientation ordinance are dropped because of the fear of negative consequences resulting from pursuing the process. (She testified that this occurs even in cases in which proof of the alleged violations appears to be very strong.) The director of CU's Office of Student Conduct reported that a significant number of complainants fail to pursue charges when they learn that they will be required to testify against their alleged assailants. The director of the University's Victim Assistance Program indicated that victims of sexual orientation harassment frequently tell her that it is "too risky to report"; it "happens all the time," and "nothing will change." In addition, several witnesses said that gay and lesbian students are often aware that Colorado's Ethnic Intimidation Law does not apply to the harassment of homosexuals. Therefore, they assume that police would be unwilling to respond to such complaints. Finally, the 1991 CU Sexual Orientation Survey found that only 8% of self-identifying victims of sexual orientation harassment reported the actions to officials or other administrators. In short, the Task Force not only heard troubling reports of harassment and abuse, but the committee was also convinced that it learned only of the tip of a much larger iceberg. B. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION[6] Harassment and vilification do not capture the entire "atmosphere" for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus. The sorts of attitudes that lead to harmful instances of abuse result in discriminatory actions as well--impeding the career advancement of gay, lesbian, and bisexual faculty, students, and staff. One of the most frequent refrains heard from homosexual faculty members was "Maybe I'll come out, but not until I get tenure." Faculty, staff, and administrators at all levels of the University expressed fear that they will lose their positions if it is discovered that they are gay or lesbian. One instructor testified that he had been threatened with the loss of his position on three occasions because of his sexual orientation. Several staff members, requiring the strictest anonymity, stated that their supervisors had threatened to dismiss them because they were gay or lesbian. The 1991 CU Sexual Orientation Survey of faculty and staff indicated that 39% of lesbians and gays were aware of discriminatory acts having taken place in hiring, promotion, salary allocation, etc. Numerous instances of perceived discrimination were described by both heterosexual and homosexual respondents: "A man was fired from his job due to poor performance. Afterwards, the supervisor involved bragged about getting rid of that `fag.' A man (who no longer works here) interviewed for a promotion. He was told by the interviewer that he probably would not `fit in' with the group. . . . The man in question is openly gay." (non-LGB staff) "Students [have been] advised away from [a] gay teacher. Faculty advised that their sexual orientation could affect promotion." (LGB faculty) "Director of my department is strongly and openly anti-gay. Work-study left because of it. Contributed to my not being promoted. . . ." (LGB staff) "I know untenured faculty in three departments who [lie] about their private lives because of fear of not getting tenure. I know of one faculty person who left after struggling with colleagues about his gayness. According to two straight graduate students and one faculty person, he was harassed about being gay in innumerable ways." (LGB staff) "A faculty member was not renewed. People in power did discuss this person's sexual orientation." (non-LGB staff) These reports are, of course, anecdotal. And discrimination claims are perhaps more frequently subject to misperceptions, disagreements about qualifications, performance, etc. than are allegations of harassment or abuse. Still, 74% of lesbian and gay respondents indicated that they feared for their job safety. No doubt this apprehension erodes the campus atmosphere significantly. It is the conclusion of the Task Force that the University of Colorado at Boulder should take substantial and immediate steps to improve the campus climate for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. In a diverse society, people will have different values and will value others' actions differently. The University need make no effort to alter that reality. It is essential, however, to ensure that no member of the University community is permitted to force others to lead limited and diminished lives or to prohibit their full participation in the academy. #012# III Recommendations RECOMMENDATION 1 ADMINISTRATIVE AND FACULTY LEADERSHIP University officials, administrators, faculty and student leaders should play stronger leadership roles in helping to improve the campus climate for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Recent studies have demonstrated that strong administrative leadership can play a major role in changing climates of fear and bigotry.[7] "People in authority--corporate leaders, school principals and the like--can play a crucial role in heading off expressions of . . . hatred simply by making it very clear that it will not be tolerated."[8] Similarly, leaders can also send messages that suggest it is permissible to harass or to treat others inappropriately. The informal messages that leaders send through their own words and conduct are frequently more influential than written policies. A number of people and groups play important leadership roles at the University. They include administrators, faculty, student leaders, and student organizations. The Task Force recommends that these people and groups be directly and unambiguously challenged by the Chancellor to assume an active role in improving the campus climate for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. At present, campus administrators are charged with helping to ensure diversity and to eliminate invidious discrimination in their respective programs. Their evaluations include review of performance in these areas. In addition, Regent policy requires administrators to base decisions on merit. The Task Force recommends that the Chancellor make it unequivocally known that these charges prohibit harassment, abuse and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Faculty members are also enjoined to act in accordance with Regent policy. The Chancellor should make their responsibility in this regard equally explicit by unequivocal campus policy. In addition, the Chancellor should challenge the faculty, individually and through organizations like the Boulder Faculty Assembly, to take seriously their professional obligation, embodied in the American Association of University Professors "Statement of Professional Ethics," to "avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students" and to "protect [students'] academic freedom." The Task Force also recommends that the diversity questions on the Faculty Course Questionnaire be expanded to include the treatment of sexual orientation issues. Students and student leaders are also critical determinants of campus climate. The Task Force recommends that the Chancellor ask student leaders and organizations to examine their leadership roles, to meet together and to discuss how they can work with faculty and administrators and staff to ensure that students act appropriately toward their peers. In addition, the Chancellor should challenge individual students to fulfill the compact they make with other students when they enroll at the University: a compact to become part of a University community dedicated to providing open opportunities for all persons to learn in an atmosphere of security, respect, and dignity. The Task Force believes, based on the information it has received from many sources, that people in positions of leadership at the University sometimes find it easier to back away from problems arising from intolerance of homosexuals than to confront those problems. The Chancellor should remind administrators, faculty, and staff of their obligations to work affirmatively to ensure that students are provided an open and secure environment in which the opportunity to pursue an education is not conditioned on a student's need to run a gauntlet of coercive circumstances or personal abuse that alters the nature of the educational experience offered at the University of Colorado at Boulder. RECOMMENDATION 2 HARASSMENT AND PERSONAL VILIFICATION POLICIES The University should adopt a harassment code that prohibits serious forms of abuse while protecting freedom of expression. Campus student organizations should be charged with exploring ways to eliminate sexual orientation harassment. It is impossible to have listened to the testimony presented to the Task Force without coming to the conclusion that vilification, threats and harassment are major concerns for lesbian, gay, and bisexual members of the University community. The need for the adoption and implementation of an effective and acceptable harassment code, therefore, is strong. The sorts of statements and conduct reviewed in Section II of this report add nothing to the life of a University, and they detract a great deal. In the last two years, policies that have sought to regulate speech that demeans, offends, or creates a hostile University environment for its victims have been invalidated by the federal courts.[9] The United States Supreme Court appears to disapprove of speech regulations that single out certain types of racist, sexist, or homophobic expression for penalties.[10] On the other hand, federal courts have upheld regulations against harassment in the workplace, and the Supreme Court may uphold state statutes that permit penalties for crimes to be enhanced when instigated by group hatred. For these reasons, the Task Force developed its recommendations for a harassment policy with care. With respect to speech, and speech only, the Task Force recommends the consideration of a policy similar to the following: "Harassment by Personal Vilification Speech or other expression constitutes harassment by personal vilification and is prohibited if it: 1. Is addressed directly to an individual or a small number of individuals; and 2. Makes use of fighting words `which by their very utterance tend to cite an immediate breach of the peace,' and which are commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or contempt. `Fighting words' were described in Cohen v. California [403 U.S. 15] as `personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.' Violation of this policy, however, is not dependent upon the propensity of the particular victim of harassment to engage in violent conduct." Such a policy is unsatisfactory in many particulars. It turns on a "breach of the peace" model and, therefore, fails to embrace the essentially discriminatory and frequently silencing nature of sexual orientation harassment. The policy also fails to target sexual orientation harassment specifically, even though the Task Force believes that this form of harassment results in particularly odious results. A harassment and vilification policy like that outlined above, however, would be clearly constitutional and it would at least represent a first step towards regulating the sorts of disturbing speech that sometimes occurs on campus. The Task Force also recommends that the Chancellor and University Counsel explore other approaches to the troubling intersection of two firm and consistent university policies--the guarantee of equal opportunity and the assurance of freedom of speech. We recommend as well that Boulder campus student organizations and leadership groups study means by which the problem of sexual orientation harassment can be diminished and eventually eliminated.[11] RECOMMENDATION 3 IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING The University should establish effective implementation and reporting procedures for harassment and discrimination policies. A standing committee should be created in the fall of 1993 to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of this report. University policies will not be effective unless appropriate implementation and reporting accompanies them. Appropriate implementation must include wide and regular dissemination of policies, explanations of processes by which persons may complain or seek support from the University, and notification to all members of the University community of the consequences for failure to comply with policies. When complaints are made about anti-gay conduct they should receive priority treatment. Further, all department heads should be encouraged to evaluate and improve their delivery of services to lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, faculty, and staff. The Chancellor and other individuals in positions of leadership should encourage people who need support or who have concerns or complaints to address their problems to the designated campus official(s). This might be done through brochures, posters, videos, and/or a campus hotline that explains what University resources and offices are available for support and complaints. A system should be established to compile and maintain information on problems affecting gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, faculty, and staff at the University. Accurate information is critical to ensure accountability for enforcement of policies, to respond to potential problem areas, to intervene in particular incidents, and to understand whether policies and programs are effective. The University should identify all policies that may pertain to this area and affect the climate for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, faculty, and staff. These include but are not limited to the Regents' policies on merit-based decision making, the recommended campus policy that would explicitly target discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the recommended policy on harassment and personal vilification, policies that pertain to faculty conduct and that are enforceable through the Privilege and Tenure process, and any policies prohibiting retaliation against students, faculty, and staff who seek support or intervention. Finally, a standing committee should be created and begin in the fall of 1993 to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of this report. RECOMMENDATION 4 EDUCATION The University of Colorado at Boulder should significantly increase its efforts to provide educational services and opportunities concerning issues of sexual orientation and homophobia. This recommendation is perhaps the most obvious. It embodies the very purposes for which a university exists--to further effective learning and the exchange of ideas and to prepare students to be successful members of a democratic society. The recommendation to augment educational initiatives is also one that the University is well-equipped to implement immediately. With issues regarding sexual orientation dominating both state and federal headlines--whether Colorado's Amendment Two or the military's present ban on homosexuals--the need to provide opportunities for the intelligent discussion of these controversial topics is both strong and apparent. Yet, even in the area of AIDS education, where open discussion is essential to the provision of life-saving information, the Task Force heard disturbing testimony about a lack of acknowledgment or discussion of gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues. The Task Force's studies have demonstrated that there presently exists an "unnatural" relative silence concerning sexual orientation issues. Threat of retribution frequently prevents lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from publicly addressing such issues. Increased educational efforts will be essential to help rebut this silence and to open future channels of inquiry. Efforts toward increased education should strive to create new and open fora for the examination of sexual orientation issues and to educate the university community about harassment and discrimination policies. Programs should be directed not only toward learning in the classroom, but in other areas of campus life as well. The following suggestions are realistic and would not require significant expenditures. a. Orientation The Task Force recommends that an important component of the summer orientation program and the First Year Experience Program recommended by the Undergraduate Education Initiative Committee deal with sexual orientation issues. The Task Force's discussions with counselors and housing officials revealed that entering students frequently regard anti-gay or anti-lesbian statements to be acceptable even though these same students consider it socially unacceptable to make openly racist or sexist comments. The need to explicitly address sexual orientation discrimination and harassment early in the education process is clear. b. Diversity Programs The University's present efforts to educate faculty, students, and staff about diversity and multiculturalism should explicitly include sexual orientation. Faculty and staff orientation programs should include instruction about University policies concerning discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation. c. Peer Education A program dealing with sexual orientation issues and based upon the Boulder campus' DARE TO STOP RAPE model should be developed, implemented, and supported by the institution. Campus officials and experts responsible for the DARE program attested, in discussions with the Task Force, to the effectiveness of peer education as a method of exploring student attitudes and prejudices. Police officers corroborated the success of peer education. The program should be designed to provide a forum in which students can safely and rationally discuss issues concerning sexual orientation and homophobia. Efforts should be made to assist students in exploring their own values concerning homosexuality and bisexuality. Information about available University support services should be provided as well. d. Classroom Teaching and Research The University of Colorado Teaching Excellence Program has indicated a willingness to develop materials that will be distributed to faculty members willing to bring sexual orientation issues into the classroom. The Teaching Excellence program has prepared and distributed excellent materials dealing with other diversity issues in the past. The Task Force recommends that these efforts be extended to include sexual orientation. Faculty members with expertise in issues relating to sexual orientation and homophobia should be identified and encouraged to lend their skills to the broader University community--through offering courses and conducting research dealing with sexual orientation issues, presenting papers, speeches, etc. In recent decades, lesbian and gay studies has emerged as a "distinct and necessarily interdisciplinary field of intellectual inquiry" involving the "study of gay and lesbian experience."[12] Conferences and centers of study for such issues have been established at major American institutions, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Duke, the University of California at Berkeley and Rutgers. Scholarly research involving sexual orientation issues should be recognized and supported by the University of Colorado at Boulder. As part of this effort, the Chancellor should recommend that the Dean of Arts and Sciences begin to explore the development of a gay and lesbian studies program. e. Housing Residence hall policies and programs to respond to harassment, to foster tolerance, and to increase awareness are needed. The Task Force recommends that the Housing administration increase the * number of programs on sexual orientation issues provided for students in the residence halls, * amount of training on these topics provided to Housing administration and staff (who serve as role models for the students), and * implementation and enforcement of policies supporting diversity and tolerance and discouraging discrimination and harassment. f. Office of Employee Development The Office of Employee Development should initiate a program to inform employees about campus policies, educational programs, and other issues concerning sexual orientation. The Chancellor should ensure that all areas take advantage of these programs and that they be reviewed and modified to maintain effectiveness. g. Conferences and Seminars The University should sponsor conferences and fora for the consideration and exploration of sexual orientation issues. The Cultural Events Board and other University departments should be encouraged to bring such events to campus. The annual Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay Studies Conference should be funded and supported. h. Counseling and Career Services: A Multicultural Center The Counseling and Career Services unit on the Boulder campus currently provides a wide array of services--both support and educational--dealing with sexual orientation and homophobia. The Center can also provide information on these issues for faculty, staff, and student groups. The University should strongly support such efforts. RECOMMENDATION 5 UNIVERSITY SUPPORT SERVICES FOR LESBIANS, GAY MEN, AND BISEXUALS The University of Colorado should develop more effective support services for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. A Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Center should be established and supported. The Alumni Association should create a lesbian, gay, and bisexual chapter. The Task Force's study of the Boulder campus climate for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals revealed that the University can be a hostile and intimidating environment. Despite this reality, the University of Colorado at Boulder offers few support services directed specifically toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Though it will likely require the redirection of some University resources, the Task Force believes that the need to provide support services is so pronounced that even in these tight budgetary times, new efforts must be made. a. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Center It is clear that the absence of a focal point for the presentation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues and concerns hampers the ability of the Boulder campus to provide meaningful support. Harassment and discrimination complaints may be filed in a variety of places. Responsibility for dealing with such matters, therefore, is diffuse. Recommendations contained in this report--such as initiating a peer education program, assuring assistance for training and education in the Housing Department, monitoring harassment and discrimination complaints, providing resources for orientation efforts, encouraging faculty research on sexual orientation issues, and helping to determine that the University provides adequate counseling for those dealing with sexual orientation issues--can be much better accomplished if a central officer is responsible for overseeing progress. Moreover, if a Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Center is created, it could serve as a visible clearinghouse for information on sexual orientation issues and support. "Coming out" groups--a particular need identified by witnesses testifying before the Task Force--could be sponsored by the Center as well. We, therefore, recommend that a Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Center be created and staffed with at least one professional FTE, plus clerical support and office equipment. Faculty involvement in the operation of the Center will be crucial to the Center's effectiveness. The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Center should also include a library and resources area for safe, informal, social interaction for faculty, students, and staff. The newly established Cultural Unity Center in Willard is a good example of such an area. b. Alumni Association Chapter The Task Force learned that a number of University of Colorado alumni have expressed a strong interest in the creation of a lesbian, gay, and bisexual alumni chapter. The University of Colorado Alumni Association should create such a chapter. RECOMMENDATION 6 DISCRIMINATORY INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AT CU University employee and student policies based on marital status frequently burden homosexual faculty, students, and staff. An ad hoc committee should be appointed by the Chancellor to recommend changing University policies that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Housing should be made available to demonstrably committed same-sex couples and their families in the same manner as it is to their married heterosexual counterparts. a. Employee and Student Benefits As indicated in Section I of this report, University of Colorado policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. President Albino has written that "benefits are an important part of . . . compensation. They provide you and your family with financial protection. . . , improve the quality of life, and provide financial security in retirement."[13] Despite these declarations, however, a number of University benefit and compensation policies work to penalize gay, lesbian, and bisexual faculty, staff, and students. These community members, in some instances, do not enjoy the same benefits and compensation as their heterosexual counterparts. For example, health insurance benefits afforded by the University distinguish between recipients on the basis of marital status. Since same sex couples are denied legal recognition by the State of Colorado,[14] qualifications that depend on marital status unduly burden those lesbian and gay couples who would otherwise be prepared to make that commitment. While married employees may enroll their spouses and families in any of the various CU health plans, employees in same-sex couples are prohibited from enrolling their partners and their partner's children in these plans. Hence, many same-sex couples are forced to find alternative health insurance plans, at considerable personal expense, in order to provide basic insurance for their families. Even worse, they are sometimes forced to leave their families without any health insurance coverage at all.[15] There are, of course, questions to be addressed in seeking to equalize employee and student benefits and compensation. Some leave and compensation policies, for example, are dictated by the State of Colorado. Many existing insurance carriers apparently do not provide mechanisms to assure equal benefits regardless of sexual orientation and marital status. Those entities that have attempted to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation have required various demonstrations of long-term commitment. It may be, as well, that as an "appointing authority," the Chancellor can instruct University supervisors to grant sick and funeral leave to same-sex couples on a non- discriminatory basis. The Task Force recommends, therefore, that the University of Colorado at Boulder undertake an immediate effort to develop employee programs that provide benefits to same sex couples and their families on the same basis as they are provided for legally married couples. In order to undertake that effort, the Task Force recommends the creation of an ad hoc committee to review employee and student benefit and compensation packages. The committee should provide recommendations to implement changes to assure that insurance and other benefits are provided equitably to students and employees without regard to sexual orientation. The Chancellor should act as quickly as possible to change those policies that are within his control. On matters that require the alteration of system-wide or state regulations, the Chancellor should advocate necessary changes. b. Family Housing Policies The University provides over 800 housing units in Boulder, at subsidized rates, exclusively to heterosexual married students, faculty, and staff. These units are not available to unmarried couples (of the same or opposite sex), even if both members are students or employees. They are, however, accessible to the non- student spouses of heterosexual students.[16] Many other academic institutions allow committed same-sex couples to rent family housing units and facilities (Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the University of California at Berkeley, Columbia, Princeton, New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Oregon). Housing should be made available to demonstrably committed same sex couples and their families in the same manner as it is to their married heterosexual Counterparts.#012# IV Conclusion Over the past twelve months, the Chancellor's Task Force has extensively studied the campus climate for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Our deliberations have revealed that homosexuals are frequent targets of both harassment and discrimination. As a result, lesbian, bisexual, and gay members of this community are forced to lead limiting and constrained lives and are effectively denied full participation in the academic and social life of the University. The Boulder campus' effort to improve the campus climate for homosexuals must be serious, immediate and multifaceted. #012# Endnotes 1. Full report available from the Office of Research & Information, University of Colorado at Boulder. 2. Approximately twenty-five responses were received. This response rate roughly parallels that which occurred in the University of Michigan study in 1991. Based on data from other sources, including testimony and research regarding under- reporting and the results of the 1991 Sexual Orientation Survey, the Task Force believes this response rate is not indicative of low interest in these issues on the Boulder campus. 3. Although the City of Boulder is under a general federal charge to report "hate crimes," it has no ready and effective mechanism to do so with regard to sexual orientation offenses. The Colorado Ethnic Intimidation Law does not include harassment against homosexuals. Accordingly, sexual orientation harassment is not a separate crime in Colorado and Boulder police do not keep specific records that accurately reflect such harassment. 4. See, generally, "Openly Gay Students Face Harassment and Physical Assaults on Some Campuses," Chronicle of Higher Education, March 10, 1993, p. A22. A 1988 study at Yale revealed similar results: "Many lesbian, gay male and bisexual members of the Yale community live in a world of secretiveness and fear. They feared verbal and physical abuse as well as discrimination and unfair treatment due to their sexual orientation. These fears were reinforced by threats, attacks and discrimination that they and their friends experienced at Yale. Most of the respondents did not believe the University to be sympathetic to their plight and usually do not report such incidents." (Herek, Documenting Prejudice Against Lesbians and Gay Men: The Yale Sexual Orientation Survey, 1988, p. 11). 5. "Given the changing and often fragile nature of many lesbian and gay youths' adaptation to their affectional status, the burdens of frequent derogatory comments, harassment, unfair treatment, and fears of physical attack are serious impediments to personal development as well as to academic and professional careers." (D'Augelli, "Lesbian and Gay Male Undergraduates' Experiences of Harassment and Fear on Campus," 1992, Journal of Interpersonal Violence p. 384). 6. Recommendation 6, below, deals with institutional policies and practices that discriminate against lesbian, gay, and bisexual faculty, staff, and students. 7. See F. Blanchard, T. Lilly, and L. Vaughn, "Reducing the Expression of Racial Prejudice," Psychological Science, 2(2), 1991, pp. 101-105. 8. Blanchard and the late CU Professor S.W. Cook, reported in the New York Times, July 16, 1991, p. B-9. 9. The University of Michigan's code was invalidated in Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (1989) (outlawing "stigmatizing" or "victimizing speech" or speech that "interfered with academic efforts" or "created a hostile or demeaning environment.") The University of Wisconsin's code was struck down in UWM Post v. Board of Regents of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wisc. 1991) (speech that "demeans" on the basis of race, sex, etc.). 10. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 S.Ct. 2538 (1992). 11. See Recommendation 1, above. 12. From Invisibility To Inclusion, The University of Michigan, June, 1991, p. 45. 13. Annual Statement of Employee Benefits 1992 (CU Benefits Office). 14. In Colorado, opposite sex couples need only file an affidavit in order to qualify for common law marriage and its associated benefits. Same sex couples are not allowed this option--thus further burdening on the basis of sexual orientation. 15. University sick leave policies, funeral leave policies, and death benefit policies raise similar questions of unequal treatment. Several persons have pointed out to the Task Force that even "benefits" as commonplace as football tickets are distributed on the basis of marital status. In order to qualify for subsidized tickets for their families, students are required to present a marriage license. 16. Further, the University Family Housing Children's Center gives priority to family housing residents. #026#