The good news is that the administration accepted ALL recommendations of the fact-finder and on Friday the two sides tweaked the contract language the AAUP created to implement the fact-finder's recommendations. But the domestic partner benefits issue remains outstanding as we try to figure out how to proceed in the wake of Michigan's marriage amendment and the court's ruling that new contracts cannot contain domestic partner benefits. While we will be discussing this issue at the general faculty meeting Monday (2:30 Roosevelt Auditorium), I wanted to have some discussion of it here for those who can't make it and to help clarify where we stand.

Basically, we're disappointed at the administration's lack of engagement and creativity in seeking solutions given EMU's culture of diversity and the use they make of it when trumpeting the virtues of our university. Being proud of EMU's commitment to diversity in the face of a challenge requires some further actions from the administration, which is why we are continuing to negotiate. For those faculty who are concerned about pushing this matter, please remember that the AAUP has spent thousands of hours improving this contract, so have confidence we can resolve this issue in a way that does not jeopardize what we have all fought for. Indeed, those being denied benefits because of this issue have been on strike with us, have picketed and have protested the administration's numerous acts of disrespect with us. Please show your support while we negotiate the best terms we can in the short time that remains.

While there are strong politics around the issue, the Negotiating Team and AAUP leadership are involved because this means the loss of benefits for bargaining unit members. Faculty have expressed unhappiness - even dismay - about the health care provisions, so everyone should be able to imagine the additional impact of losing coverage for a partner, which for some members happens at a time they are in the process of adopting children or dealing with serious illness.

Further, EMU is frequently noted for diversity, and President Fallon's personal perspectives and values [1] contains support for diversity and he noted in a remarks to the Second Baptist Church of Ypsilanti [2]:

EMU is a passionate defender of human rights, and of fair and equal treatment. As its president, I have already demonstrated my willingness to use my bully pulpit to spread that message to heaven and back as long as I can. And while our work will never be done fully along these lines, we all, I believe, have a moral obligation to do anything and everything we can to promote and accept diversity as a key element of our status as children of God.

EMU's Institutional Values from the Strategic Plan [3] [.pdf] mentions:

Human Dignity and Respect -- We believe that wisdom, sound judgment, acceptance, and respect for other persons, cultures, and ideas are characteristics of an educated person. We seek to demonstrate, through all programs, activities, and services, an appreciation of human diversity and an atmosphere of mutual respect and support for individual differences.

The test of commitment comes when there are challenges. We believe the university can do substantially better in its commitment. We would like to see spokespeople for EMU have credibility when they talk about their commitment for diversity, which would not happen if we accepted what they've offered so far.

The administration's original position was simply to delete all the language in the contract about domestic partners. We did not believe that was good enough.

Then, on Friday, the administration came to the table with a commitment to reinstate benefits if it became legal. That's good, but unlikely. They also offered to create a committee on Benefits Eligibility. That's not bad, but we don't want the committee to be window dressing - an experience we've all had with a supposedly important committee.

The AAUP consulted with our lawyers, who consulted with lawyers for advocacy groups. They crafted a proposal that we presented across the table. They said they would show it to their lawyer. Our current position is that on Monday lawyers for the university need to talk with our lawyers. While the lawyers have previously talked about domestic partner benefits, they have not had a discussion about this particular language. It is important to be able to exchange concerns about the specific language and hear from those who have been involved in developing this proposal. Although time is short, I would note that EMU - unlike U of M - has held no open forums on this issue, nor has it done outreach to those affected by the issue. We have seen no evidence of active and engaged search for alternatives by the administration, so this discussion seems like an exceedingly modest step for a university supposedly committed to diversity.

This proposal may not work, and its legality is unclear. The AAUP does not want to fiercely advocate for a position that would quickly be declared illegal, so we are seeking an engaged dialogue about an alternative. We are also aware that the administration is fearful of negative publicity resulting from taking a stand, especially after the string of negative publicity lately [4]. However, much of the prior negative publicity was based on - how shall I put this generously - poor decision making by administrators. The AAUP refuses to surrender the interests of its members because the administration feels that timidity is required here because of prior poor administrative decision making.

That doesn't mean we're going to force the university into an untenable position or poison the contract because of this issue. But we do not feel the administration has engaged - just dropped benefits while talking about the importance of diversity. So, we want a conversation about our idea. And we are actively refining language on the committee to give it more direction, resources and make sure it is not just window dressing, but consistent with leadership on the issue of diversity when facing a challenge.