OPINION & EDITORIAL
Regents’ meddling misguided
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joelle Parks:
- Farrell off to promising start (April 6, 2006)
- '08 hopefuls test political climate (November 15, 2006)
- Both sides now: Taking on alcohol, religion in Wisconsin penal system (November 17, 2005)
- Affirmative action has no place at collegiate level (April 13, 2006)
- Local media expedite petty politics (November 29, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Still waiting (March 13, 2002)
- Add another student regent (March 3, 2005)
- Direct election wrong for Board of Regents (February 20, 2006)
- Politics and placation (January 31, 2002)
- Regent accountability bill needed for students (September 25, 2003)
by Joelle Parks
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents is the governing body for the Wisconsin school system, and while the board has many tasks, political activism is not one of them. Despite this minor detail, the UW Board of Regents voted last Friday to oppose a state amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
SJR-53 will appear on November's ballot to ask voters to decide the future of same-sex marriage. Under present Wisconsin law, the only marriage recognized as legally valid is between a husband and a wife. This definition further explains that it is only applicable where the husband is a man and the wife is a woman. The referendum on November's ballot leaves voters with two choices. A "yes" vote would add the current definition to the Wisconsin Constitution and would not recognize a marriage between two people that are not a man and a woman, hence no legal status for any other type of domestic relationship would occur. A "no" vote would not change the current law or impose restrictions on any kind of domestic relationship between unmarried persons.
While the referendum is a debate in itself, the regents' opinion on gay marriage should not impact the UW System, thus it is completely inappropriate. No matter what the issue, no matter how extreme and no matter how much a person may or may not agree with it, each individual must approach sensitive issues with respect and an open mind. It is the regents' job to vote on UW issues, not political issues. This is not an issue of same-sex marriage, it is a political ploy aimed at emasculating the UW by claiming that with the addition of this ban, it may be difficult to maintain quality educators in the UW System.
Regent Charles Pruitt, chair of the Business, Finance and Audit Committee, said his committee became involved because of the potential threats the amendment poses.
He also claimed that this issue is one the regents felt they needed to examine, although the board should not take stances on all political issues.
"The language of this amendment creates uncertainty on the ability of employers to provide domestic partner benefits," Pruitt reportedly said at the regents' meeting Friday. "If this was a one sentence amendment, I think at least our committee would likely be urging you to do just that — take a pass, move on and consider something else."
The reasons for the regents' involvement is unclear, but releases from state Reps. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, and Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, accuse regents of providing political cover to Jim Doyle.
"In August, David Walsh [regent president] sat in my office and swore that the board doesn't have a political agenda," Nass said in a release.
"I may not be the most sophisticated member of the Legislature, but today's action to run interference for [Gov. Jim] Doyle certainly was political," he said.
While the regents had no right to involve themselves in political issues, their flawed reasoning is evident. The 18-member board, appointed by the governor of Wisconsin, appoints board members and two student regents to vote on academic positions and topics pertaining to the UW system, not political issues. Of the 13, only Regent Gerard Randall of Milwaukee voted in opposition of the resolution.
Abusing their power in this situation only makes it more difficult to trust the regents' reliability considering their track record in the past couple of years in terms of their compliance in the hiring of scandalous academics. Just as the regents were flawed in those decisions, the UW system can expect more let downs. As they continue to reap the benefits of political activism in the future, they will find more pressure to comment on other, more pertinent issues until inevitably, they will crack.
Joelle Parks (jparks@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in journalism and Spanish.
Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 2:32am):
Republicans oppose the ban too.
Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 3:03am):
Joelle, your attempt at a contrarian argument is admirable but it fails. UW has great incentive to push for the defeat of this amendment as its passage would serve to depict Wisconsin as a backwards state that is hostile to gays and lesbians. The loss of professors and administrators has already happened and surely will increase following November. What about researchers for the new Institute of Discovery that is currently set to become the hub of stem cell research in the US? The loss of grad students and TAs will be even more noticeable. Not to mention the overall brain drain that regressive legislation like this will empower. The UW System cannot, as you wish, pretend that the amendment is an abstract moral issue. There is more on the line than you are able to recognize and your short-sighted thinking is comparable to those who are fighting for the vastly harmful amendment.
Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 8:07am):
Wrong.
The Regents' primary duty is to do whatever it takes to protect and further the success of the University of Wisconsin system.
The ban on civil unions and marriage would directly harm the UW system, and particularly our campus, by pushing highly qualified gay and lesbian faculty and graduate students to other places. As it is, domestic partnership benefits aren't offered, and that's already a stain on UW's reputation. Some of best and brightest in academia refuse to even consider teaching here because of the lack of DP benefits. The amendment would forever prevent not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also domestic partnership benefits and other legal protections for unmarried couples.
The regents recognized this, and acted accordingly. Ultimately, they had an obligation to speak up. I applaud their decision.
Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 8:36am):
Yeah, it's not like their job is to ensure the well-being of the university, and take a position on something that will hurt their ability to compete for top faculty, or anything.
Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 9:52am):
How is the Regents reasoning for making a state against the ban unclear to you. They stated thier reason as being "the amendment would hurt the chances of instituting domestic partners benefits in Wisconsin schools." Seems pretty clear to me, maybe you just need to read it slower.
Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 2:44pm):
Did someone forget to send Joelle the memo that this isn't the Mendota Beacon?
Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 3:14pm):
I was going to say something, but everyone ahead of me already said it all.
UW obvviously has a clear interest in this bill being defeated. Namely, keeping the UW system as one of the best statewide systems in the country and keeping UW-Madison as a top 10 public university in the country.
Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 6:35pm):
You say the reason for the regents involvement is unclear and then cite two Republican legislators. Yeah...that's fair.
And you completely discount the logical argument that it will hurt the university because it will diminish all hope that the UW will have domestic partnership benefits.
Oh, and Jenna Pryor wrote exactly the same thing in the Beacon. I'm sure that's what you'd like to be compared to...the Beacon.
Anonymous (October 12, 2006 @ 2:44pm):
Joelle, as a reporter for a University of Wisconsin campus newspaper, I recommend that you read some stuff before you write your op-ed. Is there an editor on staff? Hello?
Anonymous (October 15, 2006 @ 11:22pm):
Well, if the Regents want what's best for UW, then they should clean up the mess at UW-Madison and in the system administration first. Chancellor John Wiley (who seems to have disappeared recently) should be replaced. He has had more disasters on his watch than I can remember(i.e. Paul Barrows, Elizabeth Goodwin, Kevin Barrett, etc.). President Kevin Reilly should be fired also due to his inablilty to fix the $26 million computer disaster.
