Temple leads the way – will we follow?

On Friday, Temple University announced it will begin offering full health benefits to… On Friday, Temple University announced it will begin offering full health benefits to unmarried domestic partners – including same-sex partners – of employees in faculty, staff and graduate students’ unions, beginning April 1. The agreement marks the end of five months of contentious contract negotiations and will affect 2,300 people.

Like Pitt, Penn State University, and Lincoln University, Temple is a state-related university. This means that a part of its operating budget comes from the state. Temple is the only one of the four to offer such benefits.

Pitt has been embroiled in a class-action suit since 1996 that alleges the University’s refusal to offer health benefits to unmarried domestic partners of employees is discriminatory because Pennsylvania’s marriage laws do not recognize same-sex marriage – making it impossible for same-sex partners to benefit because there is no way they can marry. The plaintiffs voluntarily suspended the suit in 2000 to allow the University to form a committee to investigate the possibility of such benefits.

On May 9, 2002, the committee released its report. In it, the committee recommended against offering domestic partner benefits for political and financial reasons. The committee feared that incumbent conservative legislators would backlash against such a move by Pitt, and that it could have financial ramifications in terms of Pitt’s state endowment.

But Ed Rendell, a Democrat, has been sworn into office as governor and has gone on the record in support of same-sex benefits. The political climate in the state is changing.

Pitt and Temple are comparable institutions. Temple is slightly larger and received only $1.6 million more from the state in 2000-2001 – small potatoes compared to either university’s overall operating budgets. Such similarities cannot be ignored.

Temple president David Adamany told the Philadelphia Gay News that the plan wouldn’t use any state or university funds – participants would pay a portion of the premiums themselves. So the cost of such a plan is a non-issue.

Temple’s plan is far from perfect. Same-sex partners, in some cases, will pay $440 more per month for comparable coverage to heterosexual domestic partners. The important thing, though, is that coverage is available. In time, such kinks can be worked out.

In the report, the committee left an “open question” as to whether other state-related universities would offer benefits. Now, the question is closed, at least on Temple’s side. They – one of the most similar universities to us in the state – are offering benefits.

What will Pitt’s response be?