Living up to our Values

by: BJazz

Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:07 PM CDT

In theory, UT Austin prides itself on six core values:  Learning, diversity, freedom, leadership, individual opportunity, and responsibility.  The administration's lack of action on this important issue undermines each of these values to varying degrees.  It undermines both its own non-discrimination policy and its ability to create and foster a diverse workforce. Regardless of whether you are moved by the civil rights argument involved, of fairness and equity for all people, all stakeholders should be moved by the following reality.  This reality is that the lack of DPB places the University at a competitive disadvantage in the recruitment and retention of top faculty and staff; 8 of 10 peer institutions offer them.  We should and must compete for the best talent if we truly seek to be a world class university.  It has been demonstrated that top faculty have left or refused to make common cause with our University as a direct result of the lack of DPB, thus reducing the value of our education.   This is an outrage and one that we all have a stake in correcting.  

It is not as if the administration is unaware of this problem.  The Pride and Equity Faculty Staff Association (PEFSA) presented a 60 page report directly to President Powers that outlined the need for DPB.  Their findings and recommendations are represented in our resolution and this column.  Since no mitigating circumstances have been offered by the administration for the lack of DPB, let's explore and refute some of the possible arguments against adopting the policy proposed.  

1) It is not prohibitively expensive.  The estimated cost to UT Austin to add DPB is .0058 of the current budget amount for health insurance expenditures.

2) It is not outlawed by the Texas constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Other universities with similar state laws offer DPB to their faculty and staff.

3) It will not be ground-breaking or risky.   304 universities including all Ivy League schools offer DPB.

In the United State alone, 9,374 employers offer DPB.  
We have a simple and straight forward request for the administration.  Show us the law or regulation that prohibits you from implementing DPB.  If it is as we suspect, that no such law or regulation exists, then the overwhelming support for this policy in the UT Austin community, as demonstrated by the easy passage of this resolution, demands a rationale on your part as to why you refuse to lead on this issue.  If that rationale is simply political expediency or a lack of will, a greater amount of activism must result.  Additionally, if DPB are not realistic in the view of the administration, what is stopping them from immediately offering benefits not covered by the State Insurance Code (soft benefits) or supplementing affected faculty and staff salaries to compensate for inequity until DPB are achieved?

Every student at this University should be offended that this administration refuses to listen to your voice and those of your elected student representatives.  For all the rhetoric on the part of the University about wanting students to be involved and seeking our council to improve the school, this is a glaring example of why to many students feel like their voice doesn't matter.  Paired with the recent kerfuffle over political signs, a disturbing pattern emerges.  We are not demanding anything but an answer.  It is certainly disappointing that this administration will not even engage in a conversation on an issue with demonstrable and widespread support.  

Brandon Jass
LBJ School of Public Affairs
Chair, Harvey Milk Society

Congrats to BOR on being a fix fav

by: BJazz

Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:18 PM CDT

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...

Electoral College

by: BJazz

Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM CDT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

It should be noted, we do not have to win Michigan, Pennsylvania or Florida to win the Presidency(if we win NM,CO,NV,VA...all possible).  I think this is a good argument for Richardson for VP (for Obama of course, she's lost get over it).  

Obamanos

by: BJazz

Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:53 AM CST

Billary

by: BJazz

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:09 PM CST

As it is becoming apparent that Texas will indeed be a player(finally) in the presidential nominating contest, some thoughts on Ms. Clinton for BOR readers to consider.

Clinton does not deserve women's vote

There are many reasons why Senator Hillary Clinton is not the best Democratic nominee for President of the United States. First, it is unlikely that she will be able to win the general election given her unpopularity among Republicans, Independents, and, increasingly, Democrats who are unhappy with her recent Rovian campaign tactics. Second, many Americans believe that the concepts of democracy and dynasty are antithetical, and thus are loathe to see the Clintons return to the White House. But there is another reason that women in particular should reconsider their support for Senator Clinton: she has used and manipulated women on the basis of our gendered interests and health needs in an underhanded bid to get our votes.

In New Hampshire, Senator Clinton accused Senator Barack Obama of failing to stand up for women's right to choose. In a last-minute blitz of mailers and e-mails, she lied about Obama's record on abortion - widely understood as a hot-button issue for many women - because she knew that a significant proportion of women would decline to vote for Obama if they believed that he would not solidly defend their reproductive rights. And she was right - unlike Iowa, Clinton overwhelmingly won women's vote in NH, and it is probable that her misrepresentation of Obama's record was partly responsible for the surge of women to her camp on Election Day. Subsequently, several women who have worked closely with Obama on pro-choice issues have denounced Clinton's dishonest tactics (e.g.: Link.

One's personal stance on women's reproductive rights is not the central issue here. Rather, the critical problem raised by Clinton's behavior is that, by manipulating women's beliefs on a key gender issue, she has committed an overtly sexist act. She targeted women on the basis of their gender, and she lied to them about an issue that is particularly important to them. In so doing, she intentionally disempowered women from making an informed choice at the ballot box. Women trusted her to tell them the truth, and she abused that trust.

During this primary season, Senator Clinton has shown herself to be the antithesis of the strong, independent woman who stands on her own self-made merits: she overwhelmingly relies on her husband's record and popularity to garner her votes, she deploys her husband to do the dirty work of distorting the records of her competition, and she has claimed the nostalgia of her husband's eight years in office while disowning her own failures of that era. Let us also not forget the ways in which she attempted to destroy or discredit the women with whom her husband had dalliances - Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broaddrick, among others - rather than placing blame squarely where it belonged.

A candidate who seeks to be the choice of women voters must stands on her own merits, must not use her husband's record of employment to bolster her own credentials, and above all must not use deceptive scare tactics on issues important to women and their health in order to get their vote. Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, she offends on all three criteria. She does not deserve women's vote.