Opinion

Pony up, partner

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• Significant benefits (April 12, 2007)
• Domestic disturbance (November 12, 2008)
• Masturbation key to healthy, functional sexual relationships (April 19, 2007)
• Equal benefits within reach (November 19, 2008)
• Get in touch with yourself (April 18, 2006)

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

• Inching toward legalization (November 23, 2009)
• Dissent: An impaired decision (November 23, 2009)
• Nike contracts: Nix or fix (November 20, 2009)
• Another justified denial (November 19, 2009)
• Woulf at the door (November 18, 2009)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents might rally when they meet next Thursday to ensure System employees receive domestic partner benefits. We strongly support the effort to make change — UW needs to compete with schools across the country for the best employees, and it is clear that a lack of domestic-partner benefits is having an effect on faculty retention and recruitment. UW is the only Big Ten school to deny employees the offering and will struggle to retain quality staff by failing to support their partners' needs.

Several roadblocks stand in the way of domestic partner benefits becoming a reality, however.

Wisconsin statutes restrict state employees from receiving domestic partner benefits, so the Legislature would have to pass new state laws to allow it. As the UW System's relationship with the Capitol has historically been tumultuous at best, the regents vying for a substantial change without further support from other state agencies could prove fruitless. The system needs to gather support to show legislators that Wisconsin cannot continue to ignore domestic partners.

Beyond the legality of the issue, the high cost of extending benefits to couples both gay and straight, as well as the difficulty of creating a clear definition of domestic partnership stand in the way of the regents' success. The system can clearly follow other schools' leads, however, to overcome those barriers eventually.

If the Legislature is unwilling to cooperate, UW must seek any alternative possible to provide for a serious gap in compensation that is pushing talent to other universities at a rapidly increasing rate. Perhaps through private donations the administration could somehow provide domestic partner benefits for the system's flagship university.

To keep up with competitors and stay afloat in the national struggle to be the best of the best, UW needs to provide domestic partner benefits. We urge the regents to seek whatever means necessary to ensure a positive future for UW — either by collaborating with state agencies and garnering statewide support for change or by bypassing the state altogether.