As UW System regents voted to formally oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Wisconsin, critics accused them of partisan meddling. These detractors ignore the responsibility of UW leaders to protect the interests of Wisconsin universities and promote stances based on sound academic research. The regents had no choice but to oppose regressive policy founded on false conclusions.
It is unusual for an academic body to take an official stance on a polarizing political issue, and at first glance it is easy to claim the university has crossed the line into campaigning. A joint release from state Representatives Steve Nass and Mark Gundrum accuses regents of providing political cover to Jim Doyle. They note that UW has made this stand despite "poll after poll" indicating Wisconsin support for the amendment. This is a deceptive argument because the question at hand is not what polls indicate, nor is it the responsibility of academics to abide by them. Rather, the UW System has a unique responsibility to promote decisions based on sound academic research, especially when it will impact UW's ability to recruit and retain key faculty and staff.
Nass and Gundrum seem to believe the UW System is obligated to promote their vision of cultural regulation, and see anything less as a backhanded attempt to run interference for Governor Doyle. Assembly Republicans have already advocated crippling UW's premier stem-cell research program, and they feel the employment of controversial lecturer Kevin Barrett is an example of the runaway liberalism that has pervaded the state since Doyle's election. It seems ironic that small-government Republicans refuse to apply their principle philosophy to the cultural conservative ideology, as they promote its implementation in every facet of government without considering whether such intrusion is necessary.
Any thought that policy should be based on careful study rather than unfounded prejudice is lost on those criticizing UW for simply upholding academic fact. All anti-gay rights legislation is strictly partisan strategy because no credible assessment has ever been made attributing gay rights to societal ills. So when proponents of this amendment make unfounded claims that contradict research, can we expect anything less from a research body than the refutation of this argument?
The marriage amendment is simply bad business for UW schools and hurts our ability to compete with other university systems. State Republicans, including gubernatorial candidate Mark Green, also ignore basic free market principles when they say UW should not offer competitive tuition for out-of-state students. They further undermine our recruiting ability by promoting state law that makes UW the only Big Ten school that doesn't provide domestic partner benefits. The regents would be derelict in their duty to strengthen the UW System by making it attractive to all of the most qualified candidates if they did anything less than oppose the ban and related policy.
If we extend Nass and Gundrum's philosophy that UW must abide by the latest polling data, we would be forced to operate in a political vacuum in which the school would be afraid of challenging authority, becoming an arm of state-sanctioned mind regression. We may as well change our motto from "sift and winnow" to "what is popular must be right."
Nass and Gundrum change the issue from gay marriage to Doyle's politics because they have no credible evidence to back up their theory that gay marriage would be so detrimental to our society that a ban must be written into our state's Constitution. The regents took a risk by formulating an official policy because gubernatorial candidate Mark Green has expressed his distaste with a number of university policies and could inflame anti-UW sentiment across the state. Nonetheless, UW has a duty to stand by its faculty, especially when regressive legislation like this has already resulted in the loss of quality instructors. UW's responsibility goes beyond political impact.
However, the political impact of writing off an entire constituency in favor of passing repetitive and offensive legislation will surely hurt the GOP in the long term. Yet for opportunists like Nass and Gundrum, the best way to turn out the base in a midterm election are issues that can be described in a few words, "No gay marriage." Until cultural conservatives can back up their beliefs with empirical statistics rather than the anecdotal fears of those uncomfortable with the progression of our society, they can expect rebukes from academics.
If Assembly Republicans seek to turn UW into the newest branch of the moral police, they will have to find more qualified academics willing to ignore facts, and as the nearly unanimous decision from the regents shows, that will be a difficult task.
Bassey Etim([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
