Last night, the University held a listening session about the recently passed ban on civil unions and marriage.
The bottom line?
Just like Fair Wisconsin and other amendment opponents stated all along, the triumph of discrimination is giving yet another reason for top faculty and staff to leave the University.
From the Badger Herald:
The Daily Cardinal:
Discussion at the meeting focused on finding alternative ways around the measure. Some proposed filing a class action lawsuit against the state. The University could not support such an action, however, as state law prohibits state entities from suing the state.
Chancellor Wiley, while agreeing with them in spirit, noted that many of these ideas have been examined in the past, and none appeared to be viable solutions, much to the chagrin of those in attendance. Though the the predominant mood at the meeting was one of frustration, many still applauded the University for its proactive response.
Wisconsin certainly has fallen from its proper place as a progressive, forward-looking leader by taking a vote on the lives and families of other people. As a lifelong Wisconsin resident, a student who loves this University, and a person who believes in basic equality for all people, I could not be more ashamed of the misguided choice my fellow citizens made.
However, we will one day repeal the amendment. That will, of course, take hard work. And our respected friends over at Students for a Fair Wisconsin seem intent on continuing the fight.
As Dean Berquam puts it,
The bottom line?
Just like Fair Wisconsin and other amendment opponents stated all along, the triumph of discrimination is giving yet another reason for top faculty and staff to leave the University.
From the Badger Herald:
Many faculty members engaged in the discussion said they intend to leave Wisconsin because they fear the amendment will act as a financial drain on their families. (emphasis mine)However, the words of one amendment supporter suggest that this is exactly what proponents would like to see.
"I'm on the job market," said Concha Gomez, an academic staff member in the UW mathematics department.
The Daily Cardinal:
A UW-Madison student who voted "yes" on the amendment and wished to remain anonymous was also in attendance.Due to the ban's far-reaching language, it will be extremely difficult to get around it, even to offer the most basic of rights to UW faculty and staff - things like shared healthcare and pension benefits.
"I heard a lot of you would be leaving like rats from Wisconsin because it would be such an unbearable environment," she said. (emphasis mine)
Discussion at the meeting focused on finding alternative ways around the measure. Some proposed filing a class action lawsuit against the state. The University could not support such an action, however, as state law prohibits state entities from suing the state.
Chancellor Wiley, while agreeing with them in spirit, noted that many of these ideas have been examined in the past, and none appeared to be viable solutions, much to the chagrin of those in attendance. Though the the predominant mood at the meeting was one of frustration, many still applauded the University for its proactive response.
Eric Trekell, director of the campus LGBT center, said the university's response to the amendment will determine whether gay employees such as himself look for jobs elsewhere. He said that so far he's been pleased with the university's response.The University has been outstanding in these past few days on this issue. Given the notoriously juvenile behavior of Republican legislators toward the UW during the past legislative session, I'm glad to see the University standing up for the truths upon which it was founded, despite the risks this courage entails. This letter by Interim Dean of Students Lori Berquam says it all.
Wisconsin certainly has fallen from its proper place as a progressive, forward-looking leader by taking a vote on the lives and families of other people. As a lifelong Wisconsin resident, a student who loves this University, and a person who believes in basic equality for all people, I could not be more ashamed of the misguided choice my fellow citizens made.
However, we will one day repeal the amendment. That will, of course, take hard work. And our respected friends over at Students for a Fair Wisconsin seem intent on continuing the fight.
UW sophomore and Students for a Fair Wisconsin Chair Eli Judge challenged the affected faculty to stay and fight for domestic-partner benefits, and promised that his organization would support them. Judge also said Students for a Fair Wisconsin has not and will not "fizzle out" just because the elections are over.Godspeed, Eli. We're with you all the way.
As Dean Berquam puts it,
"Though it may be but small consolation right now, it is hard to imagine that history will not one day prove this to be a shameful aberration in our otherwise progressive tradition."As a son of this state, I pledge to put action to these words. One day, we will live in a fair Wisconsin - fair for all of us. And that's a Wisconsin we all can be proud to call home.
2 Comments:
I am sorry I find that hard to believe. Lets be clear I voted No on the silly amendment, but think Wiley giving you a story. Are you telling me something like this is no unconstitutional.
PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION OF "FAMILY PARTNER"
1. Upon initial employment unmarried employees
will be offered an opportunity to designate a single "family partner."
2. Employees who wish to designate a "family partner" must complete a designation form, and submit same to the Benefits Manager, prior to being eligible to use the terms set forth in the Agreement.
a. Employees designating a "family partner" must be unmarried;
b. Only one "family partner" designation may be on file for a given employee at any time;
3. One copy of the "family partner" designation form shall be returned to the employee and the
original placed in a limited access file separate from the employee's personnel file, and shall be
kept in the office of the Benefits Manager.
4. "Family partner" designations may be withdrawn by the individual who filed by filing a written
notification with the Benefits Manager.
My understanding is that the state definition of family prevents the designation of a same sex partner. That's why Wiley stated the options aren't viable.
If that's incorrect, great. But I don't see why Wiley, who has a vested interest in the University providing these benefits to retain and attract quality faculty and staff, would lie about. Nor do I think the University's legal team is somehow misinterpreting state statutes.
Post a Comment
<< Home