Debate about the need for domestic partnership benefits for UM System employees is nothing new. The matter has been discussed for years here at MU, both at the student level and among faculty, and the implementation of such benefits at other universities has been on the rise.
A petition in support of these benefits, created by an MU alumnus, has garnered hundreds of signatures. Faculty Council has voted in approval of the matter, and Wednesday the Missouri Students Association passed a resolution in support of offering domestic partner benefits.
And we feel the same. As a university that lauds itself as a diverse employer, MU has a responsibility to provide equal benefits to its employees. It sets a positive standard for its recruitment of employees for whom benefits might be a selling point over other potential employers and shows that talk of diversity is more than just lip service.
However, the UM System doesn’t feel the same sense of urgency as its students and employees. UM System spokeswoman Jennifer Hollingshead expressed to The Maneater that the system had no plans to change its benefits standards.
In an interview with the Columbia Daily Tribune, Betsy Rodriguez, UM System vice president for Human Resources, said it was an issue of money, that the system doesn’t have the funds to add to their benefits budget. The addition of same-sex benefits would add between $1 and 3 million to the system’s benefits costs, she said.
Financial priorities are a common theme in our discussion of the system’s conduct, but this conversation is different. Equal benefits for all employees should not be optional based solely on available funds. They should be a priority, an expectation for a university that finds itself as one of the few remaining without same-sex partner benefits.
By being dismissive and complacent about domestic partner benefits, the UM System sends negative messages both to its employees and to its students. To its employees, it shows a sentiment of apathy and disrespectful priorities, placing basic employee rights on the backburner.
And to students, the UM System shows that respect of minorities is easiest done without a dollar sign in front of it.
Inclusion for all is not just a social movement in this case. Inclusion is something that is automatically denied when an administration says it’s not a financial priority.
Until the system shows even basic interest in the matter, it must accept that its employees and students will find better options elsewhere. It must realize that apathy and inaction are both contrary to its intention to provide a diverse, open public image.