From: Mills Mike Subject: Institutional Discrimination at CU Boulder 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.