For Gay Academics, Benefits for Partners Have a Financial and Emotional Impact Professors value the money they save and the validation their relationships receive By ROBIN WILSON Even after her breast cancer had spread to her liver, Sally Ann Armstrong kept working as a legal secretary because she needed health insurance and couldn't get it through her partner, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. It was 1995, and U.C.L.A. did not yet offer medical benefits to the partners of gay employees. ALSO SEE: Domestic-Partnership Benefits in Academe A list of colleges that offer benefits to the domestic partners of their employees (The list is published by the Human Rights Campaign) In 1998, two years after Ms. Armstrong died of the cancer, which had spread to her brain, the University of California system created a "domestic-partnership" program that extends benefits -- including health insurance -- to the companions of gay workers. Rose C. Maly, an assistant professor of family medicine at U.C.L.A. and Ms. Armstrong's partner for 11 years, is still bitter. "I would like to have told her to stay home and do stained glass and read books -- the things she liked to do. She was the most significant person in my life, and I couldn't do anything about her illness in terms of giving her what she deserved." Since the university expanded its policy last year, 700 gay and lesbian employees have signed up their partners for health insurance and other benefits. While the number might seem large, it represents only 1 per cent of all workers in the U.C. system. Nationally, at most of the 145 or so institutions that have created benefits programs for domestic partners since 1993, only a small proportion of eligible employees have signed up. That's partly because gay partners are more likely than heterosexual spouses to have jobs with insurance of their own, professors say. The fear of outing themselves has stopped other employees from seeking the benefits. But while the number of employees affected is small, the impact of the new benefits on their lives can be enormous. The list of campuses that have begun to treat gay couples in the same way as married ones includes some of the nation's most prestigious private institutions -- such as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale Universities, and Oberlin, Smith, and Swarthmore Colleges. It also includes major public institutions, such as the City University of New York, the State University of New York, and the University of Iowa. Still, campuses with domestic-partnership programs remain a minority. "Contrary to popular opinion, some elements of higher education are not quite as liberal as people think," says Michael P. Aitken, associate executive director of government and external relations for the College and University Personnel Association. Legislators and trustees who disapprove of homosexuality have scuttled plans to expand benefits to gay employees at several public universities, most recently including New Mexico State and Pennsylvania State Universities. Faculty members in other states, such as Alaska and Oregon, have won the benefits only after court battles. Professors at Rutgers University are still waging a high-profile legal campaign on that front. And last week, a former writing instructor at the University of Pittsburgh sued the institution, charging that it had discriminated against her by refusing to provide medical benefits for her female partner. Colleges and universities with domestic-partnership programs typically provide a variety of benefits, including health, dental, and vision insurance, and access to campus libraries, gymnasiums, and child-care centers. To qualify for domestic-partnership benefits, most institutions ask employees to complete lengthy forms to establish that they have a strong commitment to their partners. Some institutions extend benefits not only to gay partners but also to the heterosexual companions of employees who aren't married. Of all the new benefits, medical insurance is the most crucial to the recipients. Many institutions pay all or a portion of the health-insurance premium for domestic partners, just as they do for the spouses of married workers. But at some institutions, the plans for gay employees are less generous. And unlike those who are married, gay workers on all campuses must pay federal income tax on the value of the benefits that universities provide for their partners. Although the taxes rankle most gay and lesbian professors, they acknowledge that the extra cost is worth shouldering in the long run. The new programs foster a climate in which they feel more comfortable and in which, for the first time, they say, their life styles are not only accepted but validated. "I was surprised at how emotional I felt when the administration went ahead and authorized this program," says Minnie Bruce Pratt, a professor of women's studies at the Union Institute, in Ohio. "To have the place where I work really honor and respect my most significant personal relationship means a lot to me." Some other gay and lesbian professors, however, have found that a change in policy does not necessarily translate into a change of attitudes on their campuses. An English professor at a Midwestern university recalls that when she signed up her lesbian partner for health benefits, she was assured that the information would be kept confidential. But later, when she objected to a decision to deny tenure to a gay colleague, she says, campus officials made public the fact that she is a lesbian to try to taint her statements. The professor asked that The Chronicle not publish her name or that of her institution. "I was afraid of signing up because I didn't trust the university to keep it confidential," says the professor, whose partner stays home and raises their children. "I don't tell my students I'm a lesbian, and I didn't tell my chairman. I didn't want to jeopardize my career, and I didn't want my personal life infringing on my professional life." Still, even that professor says she would rather have the option of receiving the benefits. In fact, as the number of campuses with domestic-partnership programs has grown, the benefits have started to play a role in faculty recruiting. Victor A. Friedman, a professor of Slavic languages and literatures, was one of the first faculty members to move to the University of Chicago at least in part because of its benefits for gay workers. He was happily employed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1993 when Chicago approached him about a job. He had to think about his partner, Paul Clyne, in deciding whether to make the move. Mr. Clyne works as manager of the deli section in a gourmet supermarket. "Paul was unemployed for almost a full year after the move, because he did all of the stuff -- arranging the mortgage, getting things settled -- so that I could move straight from one job to another," says Mr. Friedman. But health insurance was one thing the couple did not have to worry about, because Mr. Clyne was covered under Mr. Friedman's policy at Chicago. Mr. Friedman is one of 40 employees who have registered their domestic partners for health and dental insurance at the university. Extending benefits to gay partners has cost Chicago about $100,000 a year. Over all, it spends $22.5-million annually on health-care insurance for employees. Other institutions that have agreed to insure the partners of gay employees say their medical costs have risen no more sharply than usual. That was a concern early on, when people wondered whether the incidence of AIDS would contribute to large increases in health-insurance claims. It hasn't, campus officials say. While the cost to institutions may be minimal, the saving for employees can be significant. That's been the case for Jerilyn R. Veldof, a librarian who moved to the University of Minnesota from the University of Arizona last spring with her partner, Joan Hutton, a self-employed musician. In Arizona, the couple had purchased an individual health-insurance plan for Ms. Hutton because Ms. Veldof's job at the university library didn't supply benefits for domestic partners. In Minnesota, the couple must still purchase insurance independently for Ms. Hutton, but the university pays for a large portion of the premium. In Arizona, the couple paid $1,700 a year for a bare-bones policy; in Minnesota, they pay $220 a year for a much better one. "This sends a real strong message to me that this university is going to support my family in a way that Arizona did not," says Ms. Veldof. About 150 gay and lesbian employees, out of a total of 14,000 workers at Minnesota, have registered their domestic partners with the university. But only 30 of those partners have signed up for the health-insurance plan, and 40 for the dental program. Registering also earns access for partners to the library and recreational facilities. Extending benefits to domestic partners cost Minnesota $47,442 in 1998. Conversely, the absence of domestic-partnership policies has driven people away from some campuses. Susan Schurman left her job as an associate professor of management and labor relations at Rutgers in 1996, after the university's refusal to offer benefits to the partners of gay employees had become a vital issue for her and her companion of 21 years. At the time, Ms. Schurman's partner had become seriously ill, and although her health eventually improved, it seemed that at some point she might not be able to work. Ms. Schurman told her dean that she planned to look for a job at an institution that provided domestic-partnership benefits. The dean offered to create a special "research" account that would reimburse her for the cost of her partner's health care. Such an offer is not uncommon at institutions that don't provide such benefits but want to hang on to valued gay or lesbian faculty members. The professor, however, didn't accept. "Frankly, that was an insult," says Ms. Schurman, who in 1997 became executive director of the George Meany Center for Labor Studies, the education arm of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. "I am not interested in a deal. I am interested in equal compensation." The Meany Center, in Washington, offers benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees. Rutgers has been locked in a battle with faculty members over a domestic-partnership policy since 1993. The university has said all along that state law prohibits it from spending money on benefits for domestic partners. But last November, the Board of Governors passed a resolution that directed university officials to begin talking to the faculty union about how health benefits might be extended to same-sex partners, even though Rutgers could not use state money to pay for the benefits. William E. Mayo, a professor of ceramic and materials engineering at Rutgers, has felt the lack of benefits acutely. He watched Steven Shapiro, his partner of 18 years, die of AIDS in 1994. Mr. Shapiro might not have died as quickly, and would have received much better care, if the couple had been able to put him on Mr. Mayo's health policy, the professor says. "My plan would have covered psychiatric visits; his plan did not," says Mr. Mayo. "He could have gotten drugs for depression that would have kept him alive and amenable to getting the medical care he needed." Mr. Mayo adds that he used all of his savings and took out a loan against his faculty pension plan to supplement the coverage that Mr. Shapiro received under his own health plan. Laura M. Milner is hoping to avoid that kind of a crisis. A professor of marketing at the University of Alaska, she says her companion, Barbara Brooks, had breast cancer in 1995 and had to pay $5,000 out of her own pocket for surgery. Two years ago, Ms. Milner signed up Ms. Brooks for domestic-partnership benefits through the university's health plan. They now pay $267 a year for the benefits. It's given them peace of mind that Ms. Brooks will be well taken care of, at a minimal cost to the couple, should she become ill again. Most colleges with such benefits pay a portion of the health-insurance costs for the partners of gay employees. But some institutions merely extend the employees' ability to buy coverage at group rates and do not kick in money toward the premium or medical bills. For instance, gay employees at Iowa State University must pay the cost of their partners' insurance, although the university does cover most of the cost of insurance for the spouses of married employees. The discrepancy has riled gay employees at Iowa State and perhaps kept down the number of those who have requested benefits: Only four have done so. One of them was M. Kayt Sunwood, a former instructor in the College of Education. In 1996, she signed up her partner, Sine Anahita, who at that time was an undergraduate at Iowa State. But when they found out that Ms. Anahita's insurance cost $1,250 more per year than did that for the spouse of an employee, they filed a grievance with the university. Iowa State looked into the matter and concluded that it had not discriminated, because while state law allowed it to extend benefits to the partners of gay employees, the law prevented the university from using state funds to pay for those benefits. The couple went ahead and paid the $1,250, because they needed the coverage. Ms. Anahita had had cervical cancer in 1995, and her treatment had cost $12,000. The couple knew they couldn't afford to pay for medical bills on their own if the cancer recurred. "This was totally demoralizing," said Ms. Anahita, who is now a graduate student and receives her own insurance through Iowa State. (Her partner, Ms. Sunwood, now works as a faculty-development specialist at the University of Wisconsin at Superior.) "This made me feel that gay and lesbian people aren't welcome at I.S.U." Even when institutions do pay for the benefits, there are lingering inequities. While benefits provided to the spouse of an employee are not taxable, the value of those provided to a domestic partner is. The tax, which typically amounts to a third of the benefit's value, can mean that gay employees must pay hundreds of dollars more to the federal government than do their heterosexual colleagues. Tom Logan, a graduate student in English at the University of California at Davis, receives health benefits through his partner, who works as a computer resource specialist on the campus. Mr. Logan calls domestic-partnership benefits "two steps up and one step back" in the push for equality for homosexuals. He and his partner, whom he did not want to name, will have to pay $800 extra in taxes this year because of the medical benefits that Mr. Logan is receiving. He signed up for the benefits last summer, but didn't learn of the tax implications until about a month ago. "Normally, this is about the amount we would get in a tax refund, so it will eat that up," he says. Ms. Maly, the assistant professor at U.C.L.A., lost more than money during the campus debate over benefits for the partners of gay employees. The University of California's new benefits did not take effect in time to improve the quality of life of her partner, Ms. Armstrong, in her final months in 1996. But when Ms. Maly thinks about the issue now, it no longer reminds her only of her loss. The day she spoke in favor of domestic-partnership benefits before the university's regents, in 1997, she met another woman who was there to testify -- Ronni L. Sanlo, director of U.C.L.A.'s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resource Center. The two women have been partners ever since. Domestic-Partnership Benefits in Academe Following are questions and answers about extended benefits offered to the domestic partners of employees, based on typical policies at colleges and universities that have such plans: Who is covered under domestic-partnership plans? Most colleges and universities define domestic partners as two people of the same sex who live together in a long-term relationship. The partners must share financial obligations and be jointly responsible for each other's welfare. Some institutions also allow two people of the opposite sex who are unmarried to qualify if they live together and share financial responsibilities. Some institutions also allow employees to receive benefits for the minor children of their domestic partners. How do employees qualify for domestic-partnership benefits? Some institutions require couples to sign affidavits as to the following conditions, while others require documentation to prove that some or all of the conditions are met: The partners have been in an exclusive relationship for a specified number of months and intend to remain together indefinitely. The partners are not married to each other or anyone else, or related to each other by blood so closely that state law would prohibit them from being married to each other. They are at least 18 years old. They own a home together or are jointly listed on a lease. They hold joint bank accounts. They have joint liabilities, including motor-vehicle loans or credit-card accounts. They are named as each other's beneficiary on life-insurance policies. They are named as the primary beneficiary in each other's wills. They have registered their partnership with a local authority if one permits such registration. What benefits do colleges and universities make available to domestic partners? Companions of gay employees typically are eligible for all benefits that institutions extend to spouses of employees. The benefits can include medical and dental insurance; partial tuition remission; sick leave for an employee caring for a domestic partner; and access to faculty housing, libraries, recreational facilities, and child-care centers. What happens if a couple splits up? Institutions typically require employees to notify them within 30 days of breaking up with a partner. After that, the partner is no longer eligible for benefits. Some institutions require an employee to wait a certain number of months before requesting benefits for another domestic partner. http://chronicle.com Section: The Faculty Page: A10