In a University Update issued Wednesday, Chancellor Mark Nordenberg announced that Pitt… In a University Update issued Wednesday, Chancellor Mark Nordenberg announced that Pitt would join the two-thirds of Fortune 100 companies and the nearly 80 percent of Association of American Universities members that offer domestic partner benefits.

Beginning January 2005, Pitt will offer domestic partner health insurance benefits for eligible employees. The benefits, which will be available to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners, herald the beginning of the end to a battle that has spanned the coming and going of chancellors, Pitt professors, student activists and Pitt spokespeople.

“I’m totally excited. It’s about time Pitt decided to do the right thing and catch up with the rest of the world,” said Josh Ferris, former president of Rainbow Alliance, Pitt’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Queer organization. Ferris devoted much of his time as a student leader to activism and education about the case.

“I feel like I could give money to Pitt right now. Well, if I had money, I could give them money,” Ferris added.

Although the eight-page University Update was distributed throughout campus in University media boxes, the health insurance coverage issue was not addressed until the fifth page. Preceding the topic were sections addressing individual achievements of students, faculty members and alumni; governmental support; meeting challenges; and building Pitt’s collective strength.

Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs Robert Hill said the timing of the announcement affected how the chancellor chose to present it.

“He thought that it was a good time to reflect on the accomplishments of the previous year,” Hill said of the chancellor’s use of the University Update. “And it’s also a good time to indicate important news.”

Hill said the three pages of text surrounding the announcement and providing background on the case and debate were included “so the people will have a full understanding of what brought us up to that moment.”

In the past, Pitt’s argument for not providing the benefits depended largely on the fear that state legislators might react negatively to a same-sex benefits decision and cut Pitt’s appropriations. Pitt discussed the issue with many state lawmakers as the University moved toward the decision, Hill explained, saying he hopes legislators will recognize that “this is an appropriate action for Pitt at this time.”

But not all readers found the presentation appropriate, and most student leaders on campus still did not know about decision by Wednesday afternoon. For Ferris, the experience reading the letter was bittersweet.

“You sneak it in there, and you sound like the good guys,” he said of the letter. “Why couldn’t this have been accomplished eight years ago?”

On campus, student opinion was largely in favor of the provision, even among those, such as freshmen Amar Mehta and Dan Sheidy, who personally oppose homosexual relationships.

“I can’t say that I would view a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage under the same terms,” Mehta said, but added, “I’m not against gays having the same rights.”

Sheidy also voiced concerns over eliminating differences in treatment of different sexual orientations.

“I think, stereotypically, [homosexual relationships] are less monogamous,” he said, but added that, if a couple could prove their monogamy, as in the case of a signed affidavit like the one Pitt will require, they should be granted benefits.

Sophomore Jennifer Hopkins went further.

“We are all humans and we have equal rights,” she said. “Maybe this will bring more and better faculty to the University — insurance benefits are important to people.”

Although the announcement pleased Rainbow Alliance President Monica Higgins, she pointed out that the process of obtaining domestic partner benefits will probably still prove tricky to navigate.

“I figure it will be a fairly difficult process, but they are making concessions,” Higgins said, noting that applying for any benefits at Pitt entails a complicated process, and that she doesn’t expect Pitt to change that process.

Gary DiNardo, who is also involved in Rainbow Alliance, believes Pitt’s decision marks a victory, regardless of complications that might arise in the coming months.

“No matter what this includes, it’s a step up,” DiNardo said.

Addressing fears that Pitt’s offering might be as disappointing to supporters as Temple’s 2002 benefits deal (See story, page 2), former Pitt student Cecilia Frerotte suggested that Pitt would not offer an unrealistic solution after such a long battle.

“I can’t imagine that they would make this concession, then go only one-fourth of the way,” Frerotte said of Pitt’s effort to meet the demands for domestic partner benefits.