Column:
UM same-sex benefits worth small cost
Published May 4, 2010
In last Friday's political column, my contemporary, Clay Carter addressed the Faculty Council's recent approval of a policy that would extend partner benefits to same-sex couples. He stated he doesn't "disapprove of same-sex benefits," but said the cost to either Missourians or students is too high.
I believe the cost of ignoring such a glaring inequality is much too high. I believe Faculty Council came to the right decision, in the right manner, though the proposal was shot down by the UM system Board of Curators in April.
Carter's column suggests Faculty Council passed the policy with no consideration for how to fund the measure. However, The Maneater, the Columbia Daily Tribune and Mizzou Weekly reported on the costs and suggested solutions to this problem.
Leah Cohn, the chairwoman of the UM System Faculty Council's diversity committee, told Mizzou Weekly the estimated total cost increase of expanding benefits would be 1 to 3 percent.
This translates into a $2.2 to $3 million increase in annual costs to the UM system. Relative to the current employee benefit budget, this isn't a huge number. I understand the UM system is in a tough spot financially, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to a lot of UM system expenditures.
Any time a change in employee benefits or student services is suggested, the money has to come from somewhere. Carter is correct on that point. However, I don't believe this particular measure will end up costing the UM system much more money. Faculty Council likely passed it because the cost is so low.
The real issue I take with Carter's column is it completely ignores the possibility that extending benefits to same-sex partners is the ethical thing to do. The main reason this action was taken was to right a wrong in Missouri.
Although our state laws don't recognize gay and lesbian couples, the UM system can do its part to help legitimize those partnerships. Because the UM system employs so many people in this state, the impact of such a decision is a huge win for those fighting for equal rights.
Those who oppose extending benefits to same-sex partners know it's becoming socially unacceptable to judge people based on their sexuality (and rightfully so). Unfortunately, they then turn to more "acceptable" forms of contention.
This is a huge problem on the gay-rights front. People can say they don't care if interracial couples or gay people get married, but what's the fiscal impact?
Detractors try to assign "non-discriminatory" reasons to halt legislation that promotes equality. These people aren't necessarily bigots, but they fail to recognize the larger issues are freedom and egalitarianism. Even though it might end up costing us a little money, I believe that preserving those American ideals is of the utmost importance.
When talking about gay rights and equal benefits, I've always said this is the most important civil rights issue of our generation. I am not exaggerating when I say small policy changes like the UM system adoption of same-sex benefits are what make a larger difference. Although cost and implementation are obviously necessary discussions to have, we can't let slight inconveniences keep us from doing what is right.
9:31 a.m., May 7, 2010
Andrew said:
You are correct. This may the right thing to do (I believe it is). But that still sidesteps Clay's point. Where does the money come from? MU can't borrow it, they can't get it from the state and they can't raise tuition. Yes, $2-3 million may be small in comparision, but it is $2-3 million that must be taken from somewhere else. Should untenured faculty be fired? Other staff? Do we reduce building maintenance? Everything is a tradeoff. Just because something is right doesn't mean it is costless. Just because something is comparatively cheap doesn't mean it is costless ($10 billion to the federal budget is comparatively cheap...but is it cheap?). Before you can say the price is worth it, you have to point to another budget item that $2-3 million can be taken from and say this policy is worth it compared to where the money is coming from (opportunity cost is a cost).