Anti-gay discrimination may no longer be a major issue within the progressive walls of the ivory tower, but many gay and lesbian faculty members say the lack of health and other benefits for their domestic partners is, Burton Bollag writes in The Chronicle’s special issue on diversity in academe.
It certainly is to Robert W. Carpick, a top nanotechnology researcher who left the University of Wisconsin for the University of Pennsylvania last December, Bollag explains:
The lack of domestic-partner benefits at Wisconsin was “a driving reason to look elsewhere,” [Mr. Carpick] says. Penn offered him a job; the fact that it offered such benefits clinched the deal, says Mr. Carpick, who married his partner of 10 years in Canada in 2003.
“It’s very difficult putting your heart into working at an institution when you’re not being treated the same as colleagues down the hall,” he says.
The good news is a growing number of institutions are taking note and extending such benefits to domestic partners, though less “out of a sense of justice” and more because such benefits are considered a key factor in recruiting and retaining top faculty talent, Bollag writes.
He notes that “the stronger the institution, the more likely it is to provide benefits for same-sex partners.” Sixty percent of the 125 universities that received the highest ranking in U.S. News & World Report’s annual survey provide same-sex-partner benefits, according to the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group. And more than 80 percent of the magazine’s top-50 institutions do, too.
The bad news is the vast majority of colleges still don’t offer such partner benefits, while some that do — e.g., the University of Kentucky and the University of Michigan — face legal challenges.
Related materials:
Ohio Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit Over Domestic-Partner Benefits
Why Aren’t There More Gay Presidents?
Same-Sex Partners of Pennsylvania-System Profs to Get Benefits
More on Domestic-Partner Benefits
Domestic-Partner Benefits Unconstitutional
New Hampshire Drops Appeal of Ruling Requiring It to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
28 Responses to Gay Profs Still Fighting for Equal Benefits
jbarman - October 31, 2011 at 10:53 am
Better still, stop typing, stand up, walk over to the next office, and deliver your message in person.
minervacheevy - October 31, 2011 at 12:24 pm
That only works when you’re communicating with people in the same department/university/time zone. I’m usually trying to work with people from about 20 departments and multiple universities across the country.
traneman - November 1, 2011 at 10:48 am
And if the recipients are under 25 years of age, do NOT send them an email, send them a text message. Email is for us “old people.” My students and my daughter have taught me that.
Elizabeth Rae Coody - November 2, 2011 at 1:03 am
I’ve also tried presenting the message as for the benefit of the recipient. I’m pleased to offer you the opportunity to do blah blah or share your thoughts on yada yada. So far, mixed, but sometimes very positive results.
I also hate the excuses about online forms: “What’s a doodle?” Honestly. Maybe #4 will help this. Thanks!
11179102 - December 1, 2011 at 9:28 am
Broaden the pipeline, get out of the “tenured faculty only need apply” mentality (tenure is dying anyway) and understand that higher ed administration is more suited to political models than corporate ones (i.e. change in administrations often means an opportunity to try another guiding perspective). Read Jim Collins, don’t seek young handsome “high-flyers” but look for quiet competence with leadership skills in leading teams and sharing credit (its about the institution, not the leader). And for goodness sakes, don’t let a baby-boomer president choose his/her successor in some kind of corporate model scenario – that only leads to stagnation and confusion as to who’s really in charge.
One well-known national research university president who recently retired was fond of saying that his previous life as an academic scholar meant zilch in his work as president – his presidency was based on external relations, fundraising, and positioning his institution to appropriatley address national and state needs. Internally, he built a dynamic staff of quiet, competent, and healthily confident leaders/partners who worked together (and set the tone for their subordinates) to navigate the university through difficult economic and political waters.
If you want real change in American higher ed, think “team leadership” not “corporate hero” in presidencies. It starts at the top.
music_librarian - December 1, 2011 at 10:09 am
As Congress debates raising the age for social security and Medicare eligibility, people in all professions are going to hang on to their jobs longer. It’s not just academe.
landrumkelly - December 1, 2011 at 10:20 am
“more age diversity”
Hmm. . . . Is that code for the writer’s possible “ageism”?
acorn - December 1, 2011 at 10:48 am
Sixty-five is the new forty-five.
unusedusername - December 1, 2011 at 11:21 am
With people living longer and longer, it is not realistic to expect people to all retire at 65 anymore. We should be encouraging people to work longer, not discouraging it. To the 51 year old dean who longs to be president: Don’t worry, you have plenty of time.
12080243 - December 1, 2011 at 11:44 am
Jeff Selingo reports, in part, that “The question remains whether this generation of college presidents, who in some ways contributed to the myriad problems facing colleges today—especially on cost, are in the best position to lead innovation in the future.”
For details of the appalling inability of our elderly president to control costs, see usmnews. This week’s example follows:
Thanks largely to The Hattiesburg American’s veteran higher education reporter Ed Kemp’s recent work, members of the USM family perhaps now have their best glimpse at the character, or lack thereof, of USM president Martha Saunders. With the latest USM scandal – improper use of hundreds of
thousands of dollars in state funds to provide Samsung Galaxy Tabs to students, faculty, and politicos – growing in scope and seriousness, Saunders is spending her time and energy in an effort to completely distance her name from the malfeasance associated with events surrounding that scandal. Kemp’s 23-November-2011 news report for The Hattiesburg American entitled “Auditor looking at tablet program,” the Mississippi (and wider) public learned that the program not only provided hundreds of USM students with the Samsung technology devices, both faculty and state officials were recipients, including Mississippi Higher Education Commissioner Hank Bounds. According to Caron Blanton, Mississippi IHL spokesperson, Bounds was sent one of the Samsung tablets by USM officials earlier in the fall (2011), however Blanton claims that the tablet was returned to USM in unused condition by Bounds. Still, the actions by USM executives have prompted a state audit that is being handled by both State Auditor Stacey Pickering and officials with the IHL. That audit is, among other things, looking into whether the $400,000+ contract effected by USM violated state law, part of which states that university contracts as large as $250,000 must receive IHL Board approval. Blanton told Kemp that the USM contract never appeared before the IHL Board, which is represented by the Mississippi Attorney General’s office.
Meanwhile, USM president Martha Saunders is working feverishly to distance herself from the scandal, telling Kemp that she is “very, very, very saddened . . . that [her] employees . . . have been caught up in” this serious issue. Saunders is, of course, referring to former USM provost Robert Lyman, chief information officer Homer Coffman, and procurement/contract services director Mike Herndon, all of whom were placed on administrative leave by Saunders last week. Saunders also added (in her interview with Kemp) that, although she was aware of the Galaxy Tab program, she was in the dark about the contract and the details surrounding it. Saunders informed Kemp that iTech contracts do not come across her desk for review, and that she assumed that any contract involving the Samsung tablets had been administered properly by iTech. Sources tell USMNEWS.net that Saunders is clearly attempting to dodge any and all responsibility in this case, and, in doing so, she appears about as unpresidential as a university president can appear. They also add that her comments relating to how relaxed contracting procedures are at USM, thus implicating any and all state agencies/institutions in similar practices, seem to suggest that perhaps millions of taxpayer dollars are inappropriately spent each year, and such taxpayer fleecing is practically undiscoverable. Lastly, sources tell USMNEWS.net that, at the very least, USM faculty and staff now know much more about the character, or lack thereof, of the individual who is currently sitting atop the 100 year old institution of higher learning in Hattiesburg.
Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA, Professor, School of Accountancy, University of Southern Mississippi
dank48 - December 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm
It’d be interesting to see the same age analysis for the House and Senate. Not to mention the Judiciary. At least the upper house is supposed to be full of “seniors.”
resource - December 1, 2011 at 1:03 pm
This is just an age-ist piece of trash. Belongs in the same bin with assumptions that ‘old’ people can’t use technology, dont understand current culture, are just doddering incompetents. Disappointed that this appears in the chronicle.
bulgakov - December 1, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Average life expectancy is actually declining due to the national obesity epidemic.
12094478 - December 1, 2011 at 4:44 pm
The economic slowdown and concomitant stasis in university hiring and advancement can be contributed directly to the aging boomer population. With a top-heavy, aging population, younger workers/faculty/etc. have tried to imitate the boom years of their parents and older peers in spending and lifestyle without having the expansive population boom behind it to support it. Riding the front of a large wave will get you where you want to go quickly and in grand style; trying to ride a ripple on the backside of that large wave won’t get you very far or look very good. It is not until that large wave crashes on the shore (or the retirement home) that the younger faculty can look for advances in leadership/prestige, etc. that the faculty a generation ago enjoyed. But younger faculty will never equal the pay scale of this generation.
I was hired 10 years ago and told that three of the faculty in our small department would be gone in the next three years. All three are still here pulling in about 150% more money than I am (which is fine, given their experience); however, I have not had the years of raises they had for the last several years and will make significantly less over the course of my career for that very reason. Unless we figure out how to make wine from water or magically recreate all the lost cash the boomers socked away and lost in the stock market, academia is going to have to figure out how to prepare for this future on a little ripple, not a big wave.
mlsmaaemsa - December 1, 2011 at 5:18 pm
With life expectancy ever increasing why should people retire at 65? According to the SS Adminsitration, in 1930 life expectancy for males was 57 and the retirement age was 65. In 2009, average life expectancy was 77 for both sexes combined. By setting the retirement age 8 years above average life expectancy, as was the standard in 1930, the retirement age today would be 85. This is a free country and people should be allowed to work for as long as they want and are able to. It is a shame that ageism is so pervasive.
knjpg00 - December 1, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Academe does have a way of diversifying–hiring only at the assistant professor level. With respect to ‘blocking slots,’ don’t many institutions have ‘a’ slot and a budget for filling it, rather than using the retiree’s salary for more than one position?
Finally, when I retired in 2010, the wonderful person who replaced me started at about 80% of my salary. I had 30 years with the institution and the new guy is in his first position.
ps. He’s good and will do well. I’m happily retired.
Richard Grayson - December 2, 2011 at 3:29 am
But have you ever seen an obese college president?
Marie M - December 2, 2011 at 9:26 am
yes
DF - December 2, 2011 at 10:33 am
Substitute the word “race” or “gender” for the word “age” and see how despicably unfair this writer is. Shame on you.
batchro - December 3, 2011 at 10:20 am
As many commentators have mentioned, people are living longer, so we should expect (particularly given the economic realities of this era) that more boomers will continue working.
However, where the system falls apart is in the boomers not working with/training the next generation. Or as Selingo quotes the younger president:
“The older baby boomers don’t want to give it up.”
Many Generation X faculty members and business leaders I have talked with relate stories about basically fighting/battling their boomer bosses for their entire careers and being held back with the old adage: “be patient…your time will come.” This kind of thinking works fine for the person saying it, but it means little to the one hearing it.
In contrast, I have recently spoken to some boomers about their mentors. These stories are full of nurturing/helpful people who paved the way for their younger colleagues to be fully prepared to take over leadership opportunities. If these anecdotes hold some level of truth, then the “pay it forward” mentality didn’t come through for the boomers.
As I type this, I think the dot.com era played a strong role in the “don’t want to give it up” mentality. Back then, Gen Xers seemed like they were taking over (though we look back and realize it was the older VCs that really had the power) and it scared the boomers to their cores. The media and popular culture played on those fears…remember the business magazines trumpeting the rise of Gen X and demise of the boomers?
What academe needs is a new way of training/preparing “younger” faculty for leadership roles, so that we will be ready in the future (though that future does look bleak given that one can imagine boomers hanging on into their 70s and 80s, potentially cutting Gen X completely out of the leadership picture). I would gladly serve an apprenticeship/professional internship with a college president or provost today, given the opportunity. I think others would as well, and the cost of a course load reduction or stipend would be paid back many times over via more capable, experienced young leaders being prepared.
Prof_truthteller - December 3, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I agree with many other comments regarding the ageism expressed in this piece. Age has nothing to do with creativity or the ability to innovate or the ability to lead or manage people. And, how old is “old” these days?
However, there is a bitter truth to the drying up of the pipeline, and the well, too, all the way to the bottom: fewer full time tenure track hires in preference to greater part time hires, means that the ‘hot potato’ of who gets to be department chair has fewer people who end up having to hold it longer and fewer people who may get to be good at it and even enjoy it. That means fewer move up to dean, director, or whatever, and fewer then make it to vice president and thus president.
Fewer full time faculty also means new hires don’t get mentored as much or at all. Mentoring requires a one to one relationship, with up to 60% of faculty part time and/or only teaching online, of course you’ll have less f2f time. It has nothing to do with age or attitudes, except maybe a disinclination to do more work for less pay.
People aren’t retiring because they can’t. Pensions have been cut, and will soon be slashed or eliminated. Personal investment vehicles …. well no more need be said. Mortgages continue to burden well past normal working life time-lines. Health insurance in retirement has been reduced or eliminated from most if not all public employee retirement plans.
What I see as a more dangerous trend and a bigger block in the pipeline than any supposed age differential, is the “corporatization” of the job. We don’t have presidents or chancellors anymore; we have CEOs. We don’t hire faculty who have been department chairs and directors anymore; we hire brand-spanking-new PhD’s in Public Administration or Higher Education Leadership or College and University Leadership, which you can get at Capella or Walden or Regents or even at Harvard or U Penn. I see this as widening the gulf between the faculty, who are more and more just another kind of at-will employee, and the administration, who are more and more just another kind of manager, and could do the same job in any other field, like retail, insurance, health care, or technology.
Part of this corporatization is the excessive CEO pay demanded or required, which only attracts candidates who are driven by money and power rather than service and humanity. Hiring panels are dazzled by candidates with big accomplishments in their portfolio, big turnarounds, big grants, big sports arenas or other buildings, big, big big. These “big-picture” types excel at pushing the real work off their desks and surrounding themselves with legions of “deanlets” who also need to get paid much more than the highest paid faculty because they “supervise” faculty, but who actually act as a kind of protective barrier between the faculty and the CEO. And it is this corporatization that also makes the job less and less attractive to faculty. Who wants to go over to the dark side?
11901736 - December 4, 2011 at 10:27 am
Across higher education generally, the shortage of younger faculty is not due to elderly incumbents who refuse to leave: it’s due to administrations which continue to reduce tenure-track hiring. No lines, no new hires; and, of course, everyone we do have gets another year older.
22086364 - December 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm
And how does this relate to AGE? Are you suggesting that, were this same person YOUNGER, these issues would not arise?
22086364 - December 5, 2011 at 12:02 pm
This resonates with me.
12080243 - December 5, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Age is among the facts that exist in this instance of incompetence and waste of university resources. The “suggestion” about age is yours.
Brian C. Bailey - December 5, 2011 at 1:01 pm
My father became a teacher when he was 18, straight out of high school. The year was 1950. He became a Vice-Principal at age 26. Then he started teaching teachers at teacher’s college. When the universities in Ontario took over teacher education in 1968, my dad was offered a job as an Assistant Professor with the proviso that he get his MEd at summer school which he did. So in 1968, with only a BA, at age 36, my dad became a tenured prof. As a GenXer, I still shake my head in amazement and envy. The impossible dream for my generation. Meanwhile, the people ahead of us won’t move on at an appropriate age. No wonder we’re called Generation Squeeze. Am I whining? Yes, a little. So on the positive side, with lower expectations, I’ve had a much easier time enjoying my life outside of work than my father. For that, I am extremely grateful as I have learned you are not your job.
baltohurds - December 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm
I remember Peter Conn well from my undergraduate days at Penn, a mighty long time ago, it seems. (Not seems. It was a mighty long time ago.) I am so pleased to see that he is still at Penn, and I would question the value of asking him, or any other excellent teacher with staying power, to “move along” in the future, just to make room for someone younger.
bhn423 - December 5, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Median life expectancy post 65 only increased about 2.5 years for men and 5 years for women between 1940 and 1990 – - according to the social security web site.