32 Robinson is a series of columns representing the opinions of the summer editorial staff. The columns do not necessarily represent the official views of The Dartmouth.
The administration is currently considering a plan to extend health benefits to the homosexual partners of College employees, treating one employee's same-sex domestic partner as another employee's legally married spouse. Dartmouth would be one of only a handful of schools nationwide to do so. The plan will cost less than $50,000 a year.
In recent years private companies and public employers have begun to offer health care coverage to the partners of homosexual employees, and have granted coverage to non-married heterosexual partners as well, requiring the same public declaration of a long-term domestic commitment. The College Coalition for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Concerns, composed of homosexual and heterosexual faculty and staff, has encouraged Dartmouth to follow suit. But the College plan does not include provisions for non-married heterosexual couples, and it will not if the administration follows the lead of the few other schools who have extended benefits to homosexual couples. The justification for the distinction is that heterosexuals, unlike homosexuals, are legally permitted to marry. But in order to insure that discrimination is avoided at every opportunity, this policy deserves reconsideration.
In today's society non-married domestic partnerships are increasingly frequent for a myriad of reasons, and heterosexuals committed to long term monogamous relationships should be afforded the same opportunities as homosexuals. The administration's plan is meant to hold the College accountable to its own stated policy of equal opportunity and non-discrimination. Like the decision to hold ROTC accountable for discrimination in the military, this plan signals leadership in the defense of gay rights. It is an important offer of support to all gay and lesbian members of the community, not just those who would receive benefits. But if the College does not extend equal provisions for heterosexuals, its efforts in the end could prove self-defeating.
