Subject: Institutional Discrimination at CU Boulder
From: Mills Mike <[email-masked]>

Institutional Discrimination at CU Boulder
by Mike Mills    Spring 1993

In a meeting on February 12, 1992, two days after the University of Colorado
football coach used a University podium to express his view that homosexuality
is an "abomination", University of Colorado President Judith Albino assured
student leaders that she would not allow unfair discrimination at the
University.  Further, the U of C Board of Regents have expressed in two
resolutions their belief that merit should be the only basis of discrimination
in personnel and academic affairs.  However, there remain a number of
University policies that institutionalize discrimination against gay, lesbian,
and bisexual people at the University of Colorado at Boulder.  At CU Boulder,
gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are janitors, students, athletes, teaching
assistants, staff, faculty, and administrators; many campus policies insure
that these community members to not enjoy the same benefits and compensation as
their heterosexual counterparts. 
>From employee benefits as essential as health insurance to student services as
commonplace as football tickets, members of the University community are
reminded that the partnerships and families they make with members of their own
sex are not valued and that heterosexual marriage is.  Every University service
that requires a marriage license necessarily discriminates against same-sex
couples, who are not allowed to legally marry in the United States.  In
Colorado, these policies are particularly discriminatory because opposite-sex
couples need only to file an affidavit in order to qualify for a common-law
marriage and its associated benefits, while same-sex couples are denied any
legal recognition by the State. Many institutions of higher learning,
corporations, and other bodies throughout Colorado and the United States have
included in their policies a broader definition of "family" than the strict,
traditional categories promoted by many University of Colorado policies.  Below
are listed examples of policies at CU that are inclusive of same-sex couples as
well as those whose benefits are restricted to married heterosexual couples. 
Examples are given of how other institutions have handled similar policies in
more equitable ways.

Personnel Policies

oThe University should include coverage for domestic partners in employee and
student health insurance policies.
The most vital personnel policy that discriminates based on marital status and,
hence, sexual orientation is the health insurance benefit granted to CU
employees.  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 partners' children in these
plans.  Even though employees must pay an extra fee to cover their dependents
with their CU policy, they are restricted by the definition of "dependent" in
the employee health policy.  The University's contract with Blue Cross/Blue
Shield, HMO Colorado, and Kaiser Permanente restricts such dependents to
spouses and biological or legally adopted children.  Hence many same-sex
couples are forced to find alternative plans, at considerable personal expense,
in order to provide basic health insurance for their families.  Far worse, they
may be forced to leave their families without any health insurance coverage at
all.
Other institutions have developed creative ways to address the issue of health
insurance for domestic partners.  The City of Boulder offers additional health
benefits to the married partners and families of its union employees.  The city
was unable to find an independent insurance policy that would cover domestic
partners and their families equally.  However, the city has a human rights
ordinance which prohibits discrimination based on either marital status or
sexual orientation.  To address this issue, the city offers employees with
domestic partners (of either the same or opposite sex) a cash benefit equal to
the difference between the premiums for single and married couples as well
access to the city insurance administrator for assistance in locating
alternative insurance policies.  This sort of a system is not appropriate for
University of Colorado employees for two reasons.  First, it still does not
provide enough compensation to cover another individual health insurance
policy.  Second, University employees, unlike unionized city employees, are
required to contribute to their insurance premiums and (significantly) to those
of their dependents.  However, the City of Boulder provides a good example of
how the University might determine qualifications for a domestic partner.  The
city requires employees requesting benefits for a domestic partner to present
and keep current a notarized affidavit signed by the employee and the partner
attesting to the status of the relationship and the need for insurance coverage
(see enclosed policy and affidavit).  The city then requires a waiting period
to attest to the long-term nature of the relationship before the benefit can
begin.  Employees are required to follow procedures similar to those for a
divorce in order to change domestic partners.
The goal of equal health insurance benefits for domestic partners as for
spouses is complicated by the apparent lack of any independent policies
providing such equality in the State of Colorado.  However, the University's
health insurance policy, CU Benefits, is essentially a self-insured program,
providing the University with a wide degree of latitude in determining its
terms.  Blue Cross/Blue Shield handles the paperwork for the University and
provides limited stop-loss coverage for large claims.  Quark, Inc., a Denver
software firm, does provide health insurance coverage for the domestic partners
of its employees through its self-insured policy.  Quark affords domestic
partners of employees equal rights and benefits to married partners in every
respect.  The University could begin to provide the same equality by
re-negotiating its contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to allow employees to
insure their domestic partners and families through CU Benefits, given an
affidavit similar to that used by the City of Boulder.  The affidavit might be
open to unmarried heterosexual couples, as many companies and institutions have
done, or it might be restrictive to same-sex couples and exclusive of couples
who can legally marry, as Lotus Corporation in Cambridge, Massachusetts and
Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx have done.  Such a change could be initiated
by the 4-campus oversight committee for employee benefits or by Bruce Badger,
at the office of the Vice President for Budget and Finance.  Don Diehert,
Director of Compensation Services at the Boulder campus, sits on the oversight
committee.
Likewise, student health insurance plans may be extended to cover the families
of married heterosexual student, though not those of non-heterosexual students.
 We understand that increased self-insurance is a goal in the evolution of
future student health plans.  The inclusion of non-traditional families should
be a part of this process.

o The University should specifically instruct supervisors to grant sick leave
and funeral leave for care and bereavement of employees' domestic partners and
families of domestic partners.
Same-gender relationships are also denied the recognition given marriage in
times of most dire crisis.  State personnel policies specifically grant sick
leave and funeral leave to employees for care or bereavement of heterosexual
spouses and families of spouses.  Sick leave (P7-2-5) is granted for care of an
"immediate family member," defined as "the employee's child, parent, spouse,
legal dependent for whom the employee is the primary caregiver, or person
living in the employee's household for whom the employee is the primary
caregiver."  Funeral leave is granted on the following basis:

 to attend the funeral of an immediate member of the employee's or the employee's
spouse's family. "Immediate member of the family" includes wife, husband,
children, parents, grandchildren, grandparents, brothers, sisters, nephews,
nieces, aunts, uncles, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, daughters-in-law, and
son-in-law.  Funeral leave may also be granted for other persons not included
in this listing whenever the appointing authority determines that the granting
of such leave is appropriate based on the relationship of the employee to the
deceased. (P7-4-2)

Hence there is some room for administrative leeway to provide equal leave
opportunities for same-sex partners as for spouses.  One lesbian staff member
reported to members of the Task Force that her supervisor was disinclined to
grant her paid leave to attend the funeral of her partner's parent. 
Fortunately, a higher administrative authority happened to be more sympathetic,
and she was able to use her funeral leave.
Non-discrimination based on sexual orientation ought not to be granted at the
whim of a supervisor.  The University should specify in its own personnel
policies that domestic partnerships are to be given the same consideration as
heterosexual marriages in the granting of sick leave and funeral leave. 
Supervisors should be apprised of this extension of benefits to gay, lesbian,
and bisexual employees in fulfillment of the University's goal of
non-discrimination.

o The University should provide equal death benefits for the domestic partners
of unmarried employees as for married widows.
The University gives significant benefits to the surviving spouses of its
married heterosexual employees.  None of these benefits are given to same-sex
partners of deceased employees.  This policy requires further investigation.

Housing Policies
o Family housing at CU Boulder should be extended to unmarried families.
The University provides 813 housing units in Boulder at subsidized rates
exclusively to heterosexual married students, faculty, staff.  These units are
not available to any couples without a marriage legally recognized by the State
of Colorado, even if both partners are students or employees.  They are,
however, available to the non-student spouses of heterosexual students. 
Further, the University Family Housing Children's Center provides the Boulder
campus' only day care facilities, with priority given to family housing
residents.  The University unnecessarily regulates the validity of the
relationships and families developed by its students and employees in providing
them with family housing.  Leo Lesh, Director of Family Housing, is unsure who
developed the policy, who can change it, or even why it was developed.
Many of our peer institutions allow committed same-sex couples access to their
family housing units and facilities.  These include Harvard University, the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of
California at Berkeley, University of California at Irvine, Columbia
University, Princeton University, SUNY - Stony Brook, New York University Law
School, University of North Dakota, the University of Pennsylvania, University
of Wisconsin, and University of Oregon.  Some of these institutions require a
written affidavit of a committed relationship, while others have no written
policies.  The University of Oregon allows two adults to live in married
student housing provided there is a child in their custody.  It is embarrassing
that the University of Colorado at Boulder has not kept pace with these
institutions, and still prohibits access to facilities as basic as housing
based on sexual orientation.

Other Policies and Services
While a few campus policies allow for diversity in family services, still
others outside the housing and personnel fields further restrict recognition of
same-sex couples.  Services provided by the students and Alumni Association are
open to very broad definitions of "family."  In contrast, the Athletic
Department requires unnecessarily severe restrictions on its services to
students.

o Tickets to athletic events should not be subsidized based on sexual
orientation. 
The Athletic Department sells tickets to events such as football games at
discounted rates to students and their families.  In order to qualify for
subsidized tickets for their families, students are required to present a
marriage license.  It seems odd that students' relationships should have to
pass such a strict test in order to qualify for a benefit as small and as basic
to the University of Colorado at Boulder experience as a football game.  We
recommend that students be allowed to purchase one subsidized ticket for a
non-student regardless of the student's relationship to that person.  There is
no need to restrict this service to legally defined spouses or families.
The Student Recreation Center is open for use by same-sex or opposite-sex
partners of students and staff.  The Rec Center is run by the University of
Colorado Student Union, which has a policy prohibiting discrimination based on
sexual orientation.  Couples need only to show joint finances (i.e. a joint
checking account) in order to qualify for a spousal membership at $20 a
semester.  Students have demonstrated outstanding leadership in developing this
inclusive policy.  Off-campus health clubs in Boulder are prohibited by the
city's human rights ordinance from discrimination based on marital status or
sexual orientation and may not restrict family memberships based on these
criterion.  Most offer a "dual membership" to any two people, regardless of
their relationship.
The CU Boulder Alumni Association has kept pace with this trend.  The Alumni
Association offers a dual membership to any two people living at the same
address.  For $35 a year this dual membership offers Boulder residents the
opportunity to join the University's Rec Center, access its libraries, and
participate in numerous other functions and services.  The Alumni Association
has shown a commendable willingness to open its doors without regard to sexual
orientation or marital status.  They should be asked to facilitate the
formation of a Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Alumni group, when the time comes, in the
same manner they have helped other minority groups.

Recommendations
We believe that many policies at the University of Colorado violate the spirit
of the Regents' two resolutions of the past year, protecting faculty, staff,
and students against all discrimination except that based on ability.  Policies
which represent ongoing institutionalized discrimination against gay, lesbian,
and bisexual members of the University Community should be changed in
accordance with the following recommendations:
1.  The definition of "family" should be consistent and inclusive of same-sex
partners and their dependents throughout University policy.
2.  Employee benefit programs should be made available to committed same-sex
couples and their families on the same basis as they are provided to legally
married couples.  The University should specifically instruct supervisors to
grant sick leave and funeral leave for same-sex couples accordingly.
3.  Access to University-subsidized health insurance should be extended to the
same-sex partners and dependents of employees.  The 4-campus employee benefits
oversight committee and the Office of the Vice President for Budget and Finance
should negotiate a change in the University's existing contract with Blue
Cross/Blue Shield to insure that health care insurance is provided equitably to
employees, without discrimination based on sexual orientation.
4.  University housing policies should not discriminate against same-sex
couples and their families.  Housing should be made available to committed
same-sex couples and their families in the same manner it is to their married
counterparts.
5.  Units within the University should undertake a complete review of their
policies and procedures, and those policies which have a differential impact
based on sexual orientation should be modified to ensure fair and equitable
access to all university services.