REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR TRANSGENDER, BISEXUAL,
LESBIAN
AND GAY (TBLG)
FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS
I. Introduction
In September 2002, President Mary Sue Coleman met with representatives
of the Queer Visibility Caucus, a group made up of transgender, bisexual,
lesbian, and gay individuals and groups within the University and from
the greater Ann Arbor community. At that meeting, the group proposed
that a task force be formed to learn more about the campus climate
for TBLG faculty, staff, and students, and to develop recommendations
aimed toward improvements.
With the full support of President Coleman, Provost Paul N. Courant
established the Task Force on the Campus Climate for Transgender, Bisexual,
Lesbian, and Gay (TBLG) Faculty, Staff, and Students. Provost Courant
charged the Task Force to collect information about the current climate
at the University for TBLG people; to learn about relevant practices
and policy within the University, at other institutions of higher education,
and in the private sector; and then, based upon the Task Force’s
findings, to develop a set of recommendations, including a set of principles
to guide the University’s interactions with outside organizations
that do not share the University’s views with regard to TBLG-related
matters. The full charge appears in Appendix
I.
The Task Force met for the first time on March 31, 2003. The lateness
in the school year compelled postponing formal public announcement
of the Task Force until the beginning of the Fall Term, but during
the summer months its members met individuals from within the University
and outside, work that continued throughout the fall term. We normally
met every other week.
Members of the Task Force undertook the following activities to gather
information:
- Familiarizing ourselves with the history of TBLG policies here
at Michigan, particularly since From Invisibility to Inclusion:
Opening the Doors for Lesbians and Gay men at the University of
Michigan (“The Lavender Report”), a comprehensive study
issued by the Affirmative Action Office in 1991, which set the
basic lines for subsequent University policies;
- Collecting opinions from TBLG faculty, staff, and students, as
well as from other members of the University community, especially
through anonymous responses to our website and in two “town
hall” meetings;
- Consulting with persons inside and outside the University
who have expertise on TBLG issues, particularly as to the needs
of transgender
people;
- Learning more about TBLG policies and practices at
other institutions of higher education and in the corporate sector;
- Meeting with staff and administrators in University
offices to learn more about existing resources for TBLG people;
- Examining and analyzing data from UM surveys related
to TBLG faculty, students, and staff; and
- Identifying and reviewing books and journal articles of interest.
Appendix II provides a list of people and groups with whom members
of the Task Force met. The Task Force is most grateful to all of
them for their time and assistance; we have encountered nothing but
cooperation
and good will. Appendix II also includes more detailed information
about other information-gathering activities. As a special consultant
to the Task Force, Jim Toy, Program Associate in the Office of Institutional
Equity, attended all meetings and contributed significantly to each
phase of the Task Force’s work. Also, the Task Force could
not have carried out its charge without the excellent administrative
support
provided by Kerry Nisbett, Administrative Associate in the Office
of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs.
II. An Introduction to Transgenderism
Because of the publicity it has received, sexual orientation is now a
familiar concept. The same is not true, however, of transgenderism, which
most people have encountered only incidentally, and about which they
are therefore often poorly informed. For this reason we have included
the following short introduction, which is based closely on the fuller
discussion in Appendix III.
Transgender is an umbrella term describing persons whose gender identities,
expressions, or behaviors are not those traditionally associated with
their birth sex. Of transgender individuals, those most intensely challenged
by traditional gender-role expectations are transsexual persons (usually
called “transsexuals”), many of whom experience such profound
discomfort with their birth sex that they may transition to the other
sex by undergoing sex-reassignment surgery. By contrast, some less
strongly affected transgender persons may live part- or full-time in
a gender
not their birth gender without desiring sex reassignment. Others may
cross-dress on occasion while still normally identifying with their
birth gender. In other words, transgenderism embraces a broad range
of individual
behaviors and identities.
The American Psychological Association classifies such gender dysphoria
as Gender Identity Disorder, a “strong and persistent cross-gender
identification” that can cause clinically significant distress
or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of
functioning. Since transgenderism is generally an intensely private
matter, it is
impossible to estimate its incidence, although clearly it is not extremely
rare. It appears to occur with about the same frequency in both sexes
and in all races, nationalities, and social strata; and it occurs throughout
the life span.
Sexual orientation is not the principal issue for transgender people.
Rather, the issue is a desire to live and to be perceived as a member
of a gender different from one’s birth gender. Transgender persons
may be either heterosexual or homosexual with respect to their non-birth
sex. In modern law, statutory or administrative protections for sexual
orientation do not extend to gender identity except in unusual circumstances;
see Appendix IV.
Transgender persons encounter severe difficulties in virtually every
aspect of their lives, both internally in coping with their own feelings,
and then socially in interacting with others. The considerable social
stigma that still attaches to transgenderism leads not at all infrequently
to verbal harassment and physical violence; but transgender persons
also have experienced not only dismissal from jobs and eviction from
housing, but denial of services even by the police and hospital emergency
rooms. Even the most mundane of public amenities, such as secure and
private restrooms, are commonly unavailable.
The roots of such hostile behavior are not easy to diagnose, but undoubtedly
the most important cause is a prevailing lack of knowledge about transgenderism,
a problem that is sporadically exacerbated by religious or ideological
dogmatism playing upon this unfamiliarity. The consequence for transgender
individuals is a climate of shame and fearfulness that often results
in repression or extreme attempts at concealment. This climate, in
turn, has hampered the development of effective services to assist
transgender people.
Despite these obstacles, over the last half-century, and particularly
during the last two decades, public recognition of the complex of issues
related to transgenderism has rapidly increased. In large part this
has occurred because transgender individuals themselves have found
their voice (largely through the Internet) and developed a social and
political presence, with specialized lobbies to press their interests.
As a result of that lobbying and of the growing awareness of transgender
issues, an exponentially expanding list of state and local governments
have adopted nondiscrimination statutes safeguarding transgender individuals.
(For much further information, see the website of the Transgender Law
and Policy Institute: http://www.transgenderlaw.org/index.htm) As of
March, 2004, four states (California, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Rhode
Island), nine counties, and some fifty cities (including Ann Arbor,
Grand Rapids, Huntington Woods, and Ypsilanti in Michigan) prohibit
some or all forms of discrimination on the basis of gender identity
or expression. The resulting legislative patchwork of protections extends
to about one quarter of the American population.
Companies have also moved in rapidly increasing numbers to provide
protection. At present about sixty employers include gender identity
in their non-discrimination policies. These employers are typically
situated in the more “cutting edge” areas of the economy:
computer and information technology (e.g., Apple, Hewlett Packard,
IBM, Intel, NCR, and Xerox), finance and insurance (e.g., Aetna, Bank
One, and J.P. Morgan), and other firms with strong public images (Eastman
Kodak, Nike, and Walgreens).
Colleges and universities have moved more slowly, although the pace
has accelerated in recent years. Currently about thirty institutions
of higher education are known to have policies that prohibit discrimination
on the basis of gender identity. These institutions range widely, from
older private institutions (Brown, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Wesleyan) to large public universities (Arizona State, California,
Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio State, University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers,
Washington). There is no easy way to explain why nondiscrimination
policies have been adopted at some universities and not at others,
but it does appear that many if not most of our peers are currently
considering changes in their policies. In Michigan, Kalamazoo College
already has a more comprehensive policy, and on December 5, 2003, the
Board of Trustees of Michigan State adopted a policy prohibiting harassment
on the basis of gender identity. (See Appendix
V for a more complete
list. We have included a policy statement from Ohio State as Appendix
VI. Appendix VII is a recent New York Times article on how colleges
have handled transgender students.)
This pattern of localized protection for transgender individuals will
almost certainly expand substantially during the present decade. It
is important to emphasize, however, that very little has yet occurred
at the Federal level. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act has been
stuck in Congress since1974. Faced with political reality, its main
sponsors have limited its scope to sexual orientation and thus have
not supported transgender-inclusive language. Other potentially relevant
statutes have provided little help; for instance, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 does not address transgenderism, while the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 specifically excludes gender variance. Courts
have likewise been reluctant to interpret traditional constitutional
and statutory rights in ways that would protect transgender people;
and in some recent cases they have used legislation (such as the Defense
of Marriage acts) in ways that remove from transgender persons rights
that they previously enjoyed.
At the present time there is thus little likelihood that significant
protections for transgenderism will be forthcoming from the Federal
Government. Federal inaction is an important factor in further motivating
efforts to protect the rights of transgender people through governmental
action at the state and local level, as well as through the policies
of individual business and educational institutions.
III. The Climate for TBLG Persons at the University of Michigan
A. The Climate for TBLG Persons Generally
A1. Measuring Climate.
The Task Force operated with no pre-established
definition of “climate.” Rather, we encouraged the members
of the University community to define the concept for themselves. Most
of our informants clearly understood “climate” to mean
surrounding physical, institutional, and interpersonal conditions,
as well as the more general “atmosphere” of the University
for TBLG persons.
We undertook several efforts to collect information about the climate
for TBLG faculty, staff, and students. Through our website, the Task
Force received about 145 on-line submissions, some quite brief but
many very lengthy. The site was constructed to provide anonymity, so
we have no information as to the demographics of individuals who submitted
comments, although all gained access only if they could sign on to
University on-line resources. The submissions consisted largely of
general comments on the climate for TBLG persons, individual experiences,
and suggestions for change; however, disappointingly, we received no
responses specific to bisexual interests. Some responses (about ten)
questioned our effort and the use of resources it requires, or expressed
resentment that the University is giving attention to TBLG matters.
However, there were no responses that could be described as manifestly
homophobic or rancorous toward transgender persons.
In addition, the Task Force held two well-attended Town Hall meetings,
one focussing on bisexual, lesbian, and gay people, the other entirely
on transgender people. We were also able to make use of the extensive
report by the Division of Student Affairs’ Gender Identity Working
Group (GIWG) and of the results from the Visibility 2000 research project
by the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Affairs (LGBTA).
Finally, many members of the University community spoke with some or
all of us about pertinent policy matters; they are listed in Appendix
II.
A2. General Comments.
A2. General Comments.As we had expected, the comments we received
at our website were various. Some were extremely positive, particularly
as to the University in comparison with other American institutions
(e.g., “The environment is very welcoming compared to most campuses
and cities.”); it is plain that many University members regard
the Ann Arbor campus as a refuge from a hostile world. As one respondent
put it, “Although Ann Arbor and the University are by far the
most accepting environments in which I have lived, this serves to illustrate
just how far towards acceptance these communities and the nation still
have to go.”
On the other hand, most comments were more critical, often suggesting,
on the basis of individual experiences, that the University, while
nominally receptive, is actually a rather chilly place for TBLG persons.
It is hard to sample these observations, but typical are these: “My
office is superficially accepting but uninformed and hostile in some
ways”; “There are still feelings of hostility for people
of alternate lifestyles”; “LGBT people are invisible in
my department, and I think the department likes it that way”; “The
climate is reasonably non-threatening, but there’s a big difference
between ‘non-threatening’ and ‘welcoming’”;
the environment is “borderline acceptable.”
A3. Underlying Beliefs. These more critical observations seem to rest
on two beliefs that were both widespread, although by no means universal.
First, many TBLG persons have an abiding suspicion that the University
is not entirely sincere in its commitment to TBLG equality. As one
respondent observed, “As a whole the University does a fabulous
job creating the façade of a diverse and accepting climate,
but their follow through remains to be seen.” (Other examples: “The
policies are welcoming, but the implementation of these policies leaves
much to be desired”; “I have felt isolated”; “The
general climate is one of required acceptance, not desired acceptance.
LGBT people are accepted only because departments and managers are
told to be accepting and inclusive.”).
The second belief is that the campus climate is characterized by considerable
variability, both from place to place and from person to person. This
was a repeated theme: “Efforts to help people of all types fit
in differ greatly by department and school/college. Some work hard
at diversity goals; others don’t.” (Other examples: “Some
people are very accepting and open, but others are very close-minded”; “The
campus environment varies”; “Overall I think the University
is doing a very good job with LGBT affairs, but I have had several
incidents of harassment, some of them on campus.”) Some sense
a lingering antagonism in many quarters (“I wish students and
faculty would realize that people can sense hostility without having
it stated openly”; “There are faculty who have been actively
hostile to me and my work. When proposing or relating LGBT-themed work,
faculty have repeatedly indicated that such work is not sufficiently
scholarly and is too political, and that I am too personally involved
in my work”). These themes were also taken up at our Town Hall
meetings.
A4. Good Places, Bad Places. Many website respondents detected differences
among various areas of the Ann Arbor campus. Although we were usually
unable to verify the accuracy of these comments, the comments were
nonetheless so compelling that we thought they should be given wider
circulation.
Several respondents, for instance, observed that the Central Campus
was “accepting,” “more comfortable,” and “much
friendlier,” while North Campus was “less comfortable” and “generally
less sensitive.” The one respondent who thought North Campus
was the “most consciously accepting” of TBLG persons was
referring, it appears, only to the Schools of Music and of Art and
Design.
A surprisingly large number of respondents expressed concern about
the Medical Campus and the Health System: “a more conservative
environment” that was “not as gay-friendly as it could
be,” with “few conversations about [TBLG] issues” – “not
overly discriminatory but [with] awkward silences.” Wrote one
respondent: “There are few on the medical campus who are conversant
with issues of import to LGBT individuals. Many of the LGBT faculty/staff/students
are so afraid about where they are that they stay in the closet.” Another: “The
medical school (in particular the Program in Biomedical Sciences) is
not as gay friendly as it could be. Gays and lesbians are underrepresented
minorities in the biomedical sciences and should be included when discussing
and dealing with diversity in biomedical sciences.”
With regard to specific units on campus, there were many emphatic expressions
of support and gratitude for the LGBTA office, as well as more scattered
praise for the School of Social Work, Women’s Studies, and the
Residential College. By contrast, individual respondents expressed
anxiety about the ambiance in the College of Engineering, the residence
halls (especially South Quad), the library (especially at night), the
Intramural Building, and the Athletic Campus. The most common underlying
concern here is personal safety, which respondents often measure through
perceptible evidence of homophobic attitudes (stray comments, graffiti,
jokes). Although actual physical violence seems to be rare, a “climate
of violence” – the lurking potential of physical assault – is
still detectable in some zones. Respondents raise similar concerns
about areas around the Central Campus: while State Street was reported
generally safe, the fraternity areas were regarded as a frequent source
of harassment and danger.
A5. Physical Safety. Our respondents’ observations concerning
safety received considerable support from the survey results of the
Visibility 2000 project. Self-identified lesbian, gay male, and bisexual
respondents were asked whether it was safe for persons in their groups
to be “out” – open about their sexual orientation – at
the University. About sixty percent of respondents thought it was “very” or “moderately
safe for lesbian and bisexual women to be out; by contrast, only about
ten percent thought it was “very” or “moderately” unsafe.
The situation of gay and bisexual men was perceived as significantly
more perilous. Only around forty percent thought it was “very” or “moderately” safe
for them to be out, while about twenty percent thought it was “very” or “moderately” unsafe.
Certainly the Visibility 2000 question was very open-ended, but it
can no doubt be assumed that most respondents interpreted “safe” as
referring mainly to physical safety.
Interestingly, the heterosexual respondents largely shared these views
both in general and in detail. In particular, they also saw the situation
of out gay and bisexual males as significantly more dangerous than
that of out lesbian and bisexual females. The explanation for this
differential may lie in social evaluations of male as against female
homosexuality, but it is perhaps easier to see males as exposed to
greater risks through their heavier participation in athletics, public
socializing, and other more visible activities.
One respondent to our website reported a physical attack: “[T]hough
I have had a lot of positive experiences on campus, I have also been
subject to a hate crime. As a victim of such an attack, I feel as though
more should be done to prevent this: be it through education or activities
promoting awareness and acceptance.”
Another respondent, who identifies himself as “a gay male undergrad
engineering student,” has had what is probably a more typical
experience: “While my sexual orientation is not identifiable
from seeing me or talking to me, I do encounter gay-bashing around
campus from time to time.” He then describes some extremely vulgar
abuse he received “when walking across campus with a friend who
fits a bit more of the gay stereotypes and is hence identifiable as
gay. I believe behavior like this results in TBLG people often befriending
their own kind. While I have many straight male friends, many of my
gay friends do not. Additionally, many of my straight friends do not
have other gay friends besides me.” (Another respondent, “a
faculty member advising students on the engineering campus,” observes
that: “TBLG engineering students feel very isolated amongst their
peers.”) See below, Section III.B, for a summary of the survey
results with respect to transgender persons.
A6. Resources for TBLG Persons. The Visibility 2000 project also asked
about the amount of resources available for TBLG persons. Here the
responses indicate considerable satisfaction. More than fifty percent
of self-identified bisexual, lesbian, and gay male respondents thought
there are “a lot” or “many” available resources,
while only about ten percent thought there are “none” or “few.” (However,
a large number, about thirty-five percent, took a middle response: “some.” It
should be noted, in any case, that bisexual students were notably less
favorable in their responses than lesbians and gay males.) But resources
are thought of as isolated. The Visibility 2000 project report observes
that, in its interviews with forty respondents, “half discussed
their feelings that the LGBT campus centers serve as the sole LGBT
resource on campus, or are often seen as the solitary voice of the
LGBT campus community.”
In regard to the number of safe public spaces available, thirty to
forty percent of these respondents thought there are “a lot” or “many,” while
about fifteen to twenty percent thought there are “none” or “few”;
but here the number of those opting for the middle course (“some”)
increases markedly, to about forty to forty-five percent, with bisexual
students particularly dissatisfied.
The contrast between the questionnaire results for resources and for
safe spaces goes directly to the broader issue that respondents to
our own website raised: the apparently widespread fear that while the
University provides TBLG persons with reasonably abundant facilities,
it does not entirely accept them as fully entitled members of its community.
There are things that the University does that received widespread
praise (such as the provision of domestic partner benefits to gay male
and lesbian couples), but these very effective programs tend to be
overshadowed by more general expressions of anxiety and complaint.
A7. How Welcoming Is the University? Much of this analysis is borne
out in the responses to the Visibility 2000 project on another question:
How welcoming is the University as a whole to TBLG faculty, staff,
and students? Here the answers have a consistent pattern regardless
of whether the respondent self-identifies as lesbian, gay male, bisexual,
or heterosexual. The University is seen, for instance, as extremely
welcoming to undergraduates generally (43.3 percent of all respondents
describe it as “very” welcoming, 28.0 percent as “moderately” so,
while only 4.4 percent describe it as “not” or only “somewhat” welcoming).
For TBLG undergraduates, however, the statistics are markedly less
favorable (14.7 percent describe the University as “very” welcoming,
a further 23.5 percent as “moderately” so, but 12.2 percent
think it “not” or only “somewhat” welcoming).
Statistics such as these were reproduced, with only modest variance,
for each other group that was asked about: graduate students, faculty,
and staff. The University was persistently seen as markedly less welcoming
to TBLG persons than to persons generally. For example, one respondent
to our website, a staff member, observes: “In my experience as
a unit HR officer, regardless of the senior Administration’s
public statements and policies and strong personal commitment, TBLG
staff still feel the UM workplace is a ‘chilly climate’ for
them. They feel isolated and not genuinely ‘included’ by
their staff colleagues and cannot truly be themselves.”
Where does this perception of chilliness come from? A valuable clue
is given by the Visibility 2000 questions concerning the small quantity
of positive images of TBLG people at the University and the minute
number of University publications that include TBLG persons. Here the
response was fairly uniform irrespective of sexual orientation: less
than thirty percent of respondents fell that there were more than “some” positive
images of TBLG people at the University, and less than a sixth felt
there were more than “some” publications that included
TBLG persons. The LGBTA office has examined University publications
and concludes that this impression is correct: most make no mention
of TBLG issues or persons even when such mention would be easy and
appropriate, as for instance in publications dealing with diversity.
The result is a climate that is somehow less – and at times markedly
less – than one might have expected. As one of our website respondents,
a self-described “gay male graduate student in a humanities/social
science program,” wrote, “Michigan is an institution noted
for its history of social activism as well as its liberal educational
philosophy, and yet being queer at U of M all too frequently seems
to invite a kind of forced, grimacing accommodation on the part of
others, a state of affairs which compels all too many scholars, both
grad students and faculty, to conceal their sexual identities to colleagues
and peers, even in allegedly more tolerant fields.”
A8. Conclusion. It is not easy to strike a line under all this evidence
and come up with a neat phrase encapsulating the climate for TBLG persons.
Plainly there is much that is positive about the environment here (in
general, as we noted, the University’s benefits for domestic
partnerships are praised), but there is also much that could stand
improvement. So we end simply by quoting one website respondent who
perhaps best captures our own feelings of ambivalence:
“Sometimes I can’t tell if it’s safe or not to be ‘out’ in
my department. I get the feeling like I’m supposed to be quiet.
There is no overt discrimination, but there are sometimes awkward pauses
or silence if I mention an issue related to sexual orientation, or
if my identity comes up as part of a conversation. . . . We need to
go well beyond tolerance (i.e. eliminating overt discrimination) to
actually promote and foster an environment more accepting of diversity.
This is not an issue of being P.C. [politically correct] as much as
it is an issue of being respectful.
“ We need senior faculty and administrators to be outspoken on this issue,
so that others in the department (junior faculty and graduate students)
will get the message that the environment is inclusive.”
B. The Climate for Transgender Persons
The situation for transgender persons is, as it appears, noticeably
different from that for bisexuals, lesbians and gay males. This difference
is most striking in the data from the Visibility 2000 project, which
asked respondents how safe it was for male-to-female and female-to-male
transgender persons to be out at the University. Two important results
stood out. First, large numbers of respondents were unable to answer
this question: more than a fifth of self-identified heterosexual respondents,
but also between ten and fifteen percent of bisexual, lesbian, and
gay respondents simply did not know enough to respond. As the authors
of the Visibility 2000 project report suggest, such data may reflect
several factors, including general ignorance or lack of familiarity
with transgender-identified individuals. In any case, such high percentages
indicate a need for increased campus education concerning transgender
people.
Second, among those who did answer, overwhelming percentages judged
the University climate unsafe for transgender persons. This was particularly
true for bisexual, lesbian, and gay respondents, who seem more familiar
with the position of transgender persons; between three-fifths and
three-quarters of each group judged that it was either “moderately” or “very” unsafe
for transgender persons to be out on this campus. These results, which
showed little variance for male-to-female as against female-to-male,
indicate that the climate is appreciably worse for transgender persons
than for bisexual, lesbian, and gay persons.
What is harder to determine are the elements of campus climate that
contribute to these perceptions. One proposition underlying this report
is that perceived lack of safety is generally correlated with lack
of information; in other words, ignorance about people who are “different” (particularly
from a culturally dominant group) breeds misunderstanding, misjudgment,
and in some cases hatred and violence. We believe this to be true in
general for TBLG persons, but particularly true for transgender persons.
B1. The Report of the Gender Identity Working Group. This report was
submitted in June, 2003. Appendix III of the report summarizes the
results of the Working Group’s survey of just over three hundred
UM community members, about ninety percent of them undergraduates or
graduate students. Some twenty-five of the respondents self-identified
as transgender. Of this latter group, a very large percentage reported
harassment, in the following forms (arranged by frequency): prejudice
in social settings (73.7%); verbal harassment, such as hate speech
or derogatory comments, because of actual or perceived gender identity,
presentation, or expression (68.4 %); shunning because of gender identity,
presentation, or expression (50%); threats of physical violence (36.8%);
property destruction or vandalism (26.3%); physical assault (15.8%).
These figures not only indicate a rather high level of every form of
violence, but also suggest why a climate of fear surrounds transgender
issues on this campus.
One transgender student reported on an incident as follows: “This
was a number of years ago, but a group of my friends and I were physically
assaulted after attending a dance in one of the residence halls. We
were targeted because we appeared to be queer. I had a car window shattered
in my face even though I had not said one word to the attacker (someone
else in my party did). Later he confessed to have felt most threatened
by ‘the one who looked like a man.’”
Respondents to the Task Force website reported similar incidents. One
respondent wrote: “A [transgender] woman student I know got beat
up a few years ago right out in the open near the diag, by a couple
of male students who didn’t like her appearance and thought she
shouldn’t be using the same women’s room as their girlfriends.” Such
assaults, although perhaps less than common, certainly can serve to
create an atmosphere of extreme caution if not of fear.
B2. Accommodations for Transgender Persons This continues to be a
central issue. The University already displays considerable flexibility
in accommodating transgender persons, but it does so mainly in an ad
hoc fashion that consumes both time and resources; for instance, a
single recent case in Housing generated a mountain of paperwork and
eventually required the intervention of a high-level administrator.
As one administrator described the University’s accommodations
(in a response to an inquiry from a committee at Michigan State), generally
an “‘informal’ resolution of issues is attempted.” For
example: “Allegations that University of Michigan employees have
experienced discrimination and harassment on the basis of ‘gender
identity’ have been addressed by management in consultation with” specialist
staff members.
However, by and large these informal accommodations are not regarded
as sufficient; in the GIWG survey, of those transgender persons who
had encountered problems owing to gender identity, only a third were
satisfied with the official University response. A particularly sore
subject is that the University still does not have an established policy
on “unisex” restrooms that ensure safety and privacy for
transgender persons. As one website respondent remarks, “I definitely
think that unisex bathrooms should be much more prevalent, perhaps
having a ratio of unisex bathrooms to sexed bathrooms in every building,
especially those with commonly used classrooms.” The LGBTA office
has in fact developed a list of unisex restrooms, but that list has
still not been made widely available. This issue is important because,
as one website respondent observes, “Dressing rooms and restrooms
are the most risky public places for a [transgender or transsexual]
person to be, and it is likely that at least some other students would
be made uncomfortable right now by my choosing either ‘side’ of
the locker rooms. I also know that in the recent past more than one
other LGBT student has been physically assaulted by other students
because they perceived them to be in the ‘wrong’ restroom
and were upset by it.”
Although restroom, restroom, and locker facilities are one critical
issue for transgender persons at the University, there are many other
issues, some of considerable importance, that are addressed elsewhere
in our report. The bottom line is that we are, by common consent and
empirical evidence, not yet remotely successful in addressing the needs
of transgender persons.
IV. Recommendations for the University of Michigan
A. The Rights of Transgender Persons
A1. We recommend that the Regents amend Bylaw
14.06 to provide
non-discrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless
of “gender identity.”
At present, Bylaw
14.06 bars discrimination on the basis of “race,
sex, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, age, marital
status, sexual orientation, disability, or Vietnam-era veteran status.” The
additional language would protect against discrimination (including
harassment) because of a person’s actual or perceived gender,
including that person’s appearance or behavior. There is today
widespread agreement that because gender identity cannot be reliably
protected through interpretation of “sex” or “sexual
orientation,” the issue must be addressed through a distinct
policy statement.
All those with whom we have consulted, including not only many members
of the University’s transgender community but also the UM administrators
who implement the nondiscrimination policy, agree that such a change
in the Bylaw would be of great consequence both real and symbolic.
By adopting this amendment, the Regents will send a forthright, unambiguous
signal that this University is committed as an entirety to protecting
its transgender members from arbitrary discrimination. Such a decisive
signal is clearly preferable to the confusion and anger caused a decade
ago by the University’s lengthy, embarrassing delay in adopting
the sexual orientation amendment.
The proposed change in wording closely accords with the current trend
in policies at our peer institutions, a large and steadily increasing
number of whom have either adopted this change in their nondiscrimination
policies or are currently considering doing so (see Appendix
V). It
also coincides with the recent alteration in the University's Statement
of Student Rights and Responsibilities; the amendment was also endorsed
in the report of the Gender Identity Working Group. The cities of Ann
Arbor and Ypsilanti have adopted similar nondiscrimination language.
Because this change could involve additional liability for the University,
we asked David Masson and Lynette Kosky of the General Counsel’s
office to examine the experience of other Big Ten Universities: Iowa,
Minnesota (by virtue of State statute), and Michigan State (which recently
forbade harassment). (The change in policy at Ohio State occurred too
recently to be considered.) Iowa’s experience is especially pertinent:
the General Counsel’s office there reports that: “There
have been very few issues, if any, in the student arena but there have
been two complaints in the last 5 years from a transgendered employee
concerning issues of the restrooms. . . . Although no issue had come
up regarding student housing, it was decided that a transgendered individual
would be provided with a private room with his/her own restroom or
with a single-staff unisex bathroom.” At Minnesota there have
also been “no transgender or gender identity lawsuits filed.
Generally problems arise at the time of restroom transition but the
staff works on these on a case-by-case basis to the satisfaction of
the parties involved.” Michigan State has had no experience to
report as yet.
The General Counsel’s office also examined relevant case law.
They report that: “[C]ourt decisions as well as the experience
from other Universities indicate that the University would be free
to exercise its discretion to determine the most appropriate manner
in enforcing a gender appropriate use of restroom, shower, and locker
facilities. However, on a case by case basis the University may well
be faced with the need to provide access to single-occupancy facilities.” Nothing
indicates, however, that the legal implications of our proposed policy
change would be large, or indeed that very much more would be required
than the University’s current ad hoc efforts to accommodate transgender
students and employees. The change in policy would, however, make the
University’s accommodations far more overt and deliberate than
at present.
Since our Task Force began meeting in late March, 2003, more than a
half million faculty, staff, and students at other American universities
(Arizona State, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ohio State University,
University of Pennsylvania, and the entire University of California
system) have come under regulations forbidding discrimination on the
basis of gender identity. It is manifest that nondiscrimination policy
is now headed in this direction right across the country. We believe
that Michigan should be identified with pace-setting institutions in
a rapidly emerging area of human rights.
A2. We recommend that the University develop and adopt a Standard Practice
Guide (SPG) for preventing discrimination based on gender identity,
and that it also expand protections provided in other relevant SPGs
and University policies to include gender identity.
Establishing and revising University policy is a crucial immediate
step to ensure the protection and rights of members of the University
community with regard to gender identity. In a ripple effect, the adoption
of an official University policy requires units across the University
to modify procedures and practices to abide by that policy. Therefore,
in addition to our key recommendation that the Regents revise Bylaw
14.06 to include gender identity (as stated above), and irrespective
of whether a Bylaw revision occurs, we also strongly recommend that
the University immediately proceed to develop a Standard Practice Guide
whose aim is to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identify.
To this end, SPG 601.6 Preventing
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation is an appropriate model.
Sexual orientation is not the principal issue
for transgender people. Rather, the issue is a desire to live and to
be perceived as a gender different from one’s biological sex
at birth. Since transgender persons may be either heterosexual or homosexual
with respect to their non-birth sex, existing University policies that
offer protections with respect to sexual orientation cannot be seen
to cover the issue of gender identity (see Appendix
IV). Rather, new
policies must be developed and existing policies must be revised.
One important part of this process will be to determine what constitutes “reasonable
accommodation.” Because, as we observed above in Section II, “transgender” is
an umbrella term, recognizing and dealing with discrimination on the
basis of gender identity is not necessarily a straightforward matter.
The SPG will need to work out:
- First, a means whereby a
transgender person, who wishes accommodation under the nondiscrimination
policy, can register with an appropriate
office that will gather information and determine the person’s
eligibility for accommodation in a timely manner on a case-by-case
basis;
- Second, a means for strictly protecting the personal privacy
of transgender persons to the maximum extent that is consistent
with implementing accommodations; and
- Third, an evolving repertory of the accommodations that may be
provided in particular circumstances.
- These policies would apply to most transgender persons. However,
post-operative transsexuals must presumably be treated, under state
law, as members of the sex to which they now belong, rather than
through an accommodation model.
It may well be that different forms of accommodation will be required
depending on circumstances (e.g., for decisions about room assignments
in University Housing). Nonetheless, evidence from other institutions,
especially the University of Iowa, suggests that these issues can,
in fact, be resolved without undue fuss; and similar problems also
frequently arise in applying other aspects of the existing nondiscrimination
policy.
In addition to a new SPG proposed above, existing policies should
be reviewed and modified to include protection for gender identity
at
both the central University and unit levels. An excellent example
of this type of policy modification is the Statement of Student Rights
and Responsibilities, which was revised in July 2003, to include “gender
identity” in its statement on student rights. Other SPGs that
would need to be revised include 201.16 Employment Agencies and Search
Firms, 201.35 Non-Discrimination, 201.59 Testing, 201.60 Training
Programs, 201.72 Reduction in Force, 201.89 Sexual Harassment, and
602.2 Gift
Acceptance.
If Regents’ Bylaw
14.06 is revised, all units that produce
documents which include the nondiscrimination clause will need to
revise them
within a reasonable amount of time.
B. Awareness, Education, and Safety
The Task Force regards these three issues as inextricably linked.
The Task Force received only sketchy first-hand accounts of physical
violence directed against TBLG persons, nor did DPS report any such
accounts to us. Nevertheless, safety emerged as a significant concern
among many of our informants. The Task Force is concerned that an
absence of reported violence does not necessarily mean that the potential
for serious violence does not exist; indeed we have some anecdotal
evidence that serious violence has in fact occurred but has gone
unreported . As we saw in Section III above, community members generally – heterosexuals
and TBLG persons alike – believe that there are serious issues
of physical safety in and around the Ann Arbor campus; and many of
our sources report taking defensive actions, for instance by avoiding
areas of the campus where oral harassment or graffiti are common
enough to constitute a warning of more direct abuse.
Such a climate of indeterminate fear is not easy to address. We believe
the best approach is through a combination of, on the one hand, a
more determined effort to educate the entire community about TBLG
matters generally and about transgenderism in particular; and, on
the other, clear policy statements against harassment and discrimination
(including those recommended in Section IV.A above) backed up by
a strong commitment to enforce them.
B1. We recommend that the Department of Public Safety, building on
its current efforts, work to increase its contacts with the TBLG
community and to improve its integration with TBLG life on campus.
The Task Force has received no complaints about the services provided
by the Department of Public Safety. However, as DPS officials have
pointed out, this is a difficult area because victims may well be
reluctant to report offenses, and then, if the alleged perpetrators
are apprehended, to help prosecute them, because of the personal
exposure that is inevitably involved in legal action. Also, some
transgender persons report a general fear of the police based on
widely reported incidents in which police officers elsewhere have
mistreated transgender people; and the absence of reported physical
violence against transgender people on the UM campus and locally
is not sufficient to allay such fear. As a result, it is likely that
hate incidents directed toward TBLG persons are substantially underreported
and underprosecuted.
Although there are no simple or straightforward ways to address this
complicated problem, the Task Force recommends the following. First,
although the present “in house” training of DPS recruits
has a block of time dealing with diversity issues on campus, the
time devoted specifically to TBLG issues has been cut back in recent
years. We strongly urge DPS to restore a four-hour training block
on TBLG matters, including discussions of sexual orientation, transgenderism,
and the sorts of practical policing problems that can arise in relation
to them. This educational opportunity should also be offered on an
on-going basis to DPS veteran officers, administrators, and support
staff.
Closely related to these educational efforts is outreach. In recent
years DPS has actively attempted to integrate itself more fully in
campus life, for instance by assigning officers to “beats” that
allow them to develop personal familiarity with specific campus “neighborhoods.” Despite
these efforts, DPS has experienced difficulty in developing close
contacts with TBLG groups; in fact, contacts seem actually to have
decreased in the last few years. We urge the LGBTA office and other
responsible campus offices to foster opportunities for TBLG people
to interact with DPS representatives. One means might be to set up
open meetings in which DPS representatives could provide information
to the TBLG community, who could, in turn, ask questions and express
concerns.
DPS apparently does not maintain a running file of reported “hate
incidents” that are less than crimes (for instance, oral taunts
or graffiti), or where the victim may not wish to prosecute in order
to avoid losing anonymity. The LGBTA office has kept such a file
for some years. We urge DPS to cooperate with the LGBTA office in
this matter, since such a file may offer valuable information on
patterns of harassment around the campus. It is a source of regret
that the current version of the Campus Safety Handbook does not even
indicate how to report such “hate incidents.”
B2. We recommend that the University significantly enhance its efforts
to educate faculty, staff, and students about TBLG issues, especially
with respect to transgenderism, about which there is a widespread
lack of knowledge and understanding.
Knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of differences among people
are inextricably linked. Based on the information the Task Force
has gathered, we are convinced that by and large faculty, students,
and staff at the University know little or nothing about transgenderism
or the special challenges to the transgender members of our community.
Further, we believe that this extreme lack of knowledge in the community
is linked with the perception, as revealed by the results of the
Visibility 2000 survey, that transgender people are at significant
risk with regard to discrimination and harassment.
Therefore, we recommend that the University significantly enhance
its efforts to educate the community in the following ways:
Orientation programs for all incoming students, new faculty, and
new staff should include content that acknowledges and welcomes TBLG
persons as valuable members of the community, reinforces the rights
and protections due to all members of the community, provides a general
introduction to transgenderism, and provides information about resources
available to TBLG persons.
We also recommend that sufficient funds be allocated to ensure that
key components of such educational efforts are available, including,
for instance, a speaker’s bureau that includes students, faculty,
and staff; relevant skits by the Center for Research on Learning
and Teaching (CRLT) Players; and funds to create a videotape/documentary
on sexual orientation and transgenderism similar to the videotapes
on disabilities and depression.
Finally, University initiatives and training programs that focus
prominently on matters of diversity should acknowledge sexual orientation
and gender identify as integral parts of “diversity,” and
therefore worthy of discussion and attention.
B3. We recommend that the University promote visible representation
of TBLG persons as an important part of our institutional commitment
to welcome and support TBLG members of the community.
TBLG members of the University community experience a sense of invisibility
through the pointed absence of TBLG images and references in University
publications, programs, classrooms, and other settings. This invisibility
sends a painful message to TBLG members of the community of not belonging,
of not being tangibly acknowledged as a valued part of the community.
It also can convey a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude,
which sends a negative, hurtful message: stay hidden.
Numerous comments submitted to our web site expressed concern about
the invisibility of TBLG people and issues at the University. A few
examples of these comments are these: “The LGTB community and
its supports are fairly invisible on this campus...[Outside the LGBTA
office], being queer here is a fairly lonely road,” “Usually,
I felt invisible in my classes and when participating in specific
programs at Michigan . . . because nothing about sexual orientation
as an identity that lacks privilege was ever brought up unless I
made it a point to come out in my class...and then talk about my
experiences. Usually, this meant I was tokenized. This makes me feel
as if I am not a valued group on this campus.” “Though
LGBT issues are occasionally raised in School of Education classes,
I've never heard them mentioned once in any setting in [my] department
(class, seminar, meeting, etc.). LGBT folk are invisible [here],
and I get the impression that the department likes it that way.” “[Transgender]
people are not visible on this campus...,” and “...there
seems to be something of a ‘glass ceiling’ in terms of
seeing an out and visible presence anywhere in the upper administration.”
In addition, according to the report of the LGBTA office’s
Visibility 2000 survey, “Only 29 percent of respondents felt
that there were more than ‘some’ positive images of LGBT
people at University of Michigan, and only 16 percent felt that there
were more than ‘some’ publications with inclusion of
LGBT people at University of Michigan. [The] document analysis generally
supports these perceptions as well. A significant percentage of reviewed
documents made no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity
in their literature. Only 2 percent of all reviewed documents made
any mention of LGBT students, faculty or staff in their literature
where appropriate.”
Although some lack of visibility may be the result of benign omission,
even the well-intended should be reminded of how important it is
that the University’s outer expressions represent the full
diversity of our campus.
To address this lack, we recommend that University leadership at
the top levels should periodically urge leadership at all levels
to take deliberate steps to include images of TBLG people in University
publications at all levels (photographs and text), in recruitment
materials, on University websites, in orientation programs and in
other programming, in content on University-owned media (e.g., Michigan
TV and Michigan Radio). Steps should also be taken to ensure that
staff at University-operated offices that develop publications (e.g.,
Biomedical Communications and Marketing and Communications) are knowledgeable
about these issues and encourage the units that employ them to include
such visibility. In addition, the LGBTA audit of University publications
should be periodically updated to assess progress.
C. Services and Support
C1. We recommend that the University Health System conduct an external
review of the Comprehensive Gender Services Program in order to assess
its services.
The University of Michigan Health System's Comprehensive Gender Services
Program (CGSP) was created in 1993 and has served over 450 clients
since that time. Their services include primary health care, speech/voice
therapy, surgery, and assistance with work-transition issues. Although
the Program’s clientele is almost entirely from outside the
University, CGSP is the only full-services facilitator to transgender
persons living in southeastern Michigan, and as such its continued
presence is also crucially important to the climate for transgender
persons within the University.
The Task Force strongly believes that this program should be designed,
structured, and staffed toward the end of providing high quality
care to its clients, using up-to-date approaches to transgender matters.
We have heard from a wide variety of sources expressing concern about
the guidance and services that CGSP provides to clients who are either
questioning their gender identity or are transitioning to a new gender
identity. Much of the concern centers on the rigidity with which,
so it is alleged, CGSP interprets and applies the pertinent medical
standards. We have received many reports of transgender individuals
who, frustrated by what they perceive as the excessive inflexibility
of CGSP, have resorted to stratagems that circumvent it.
We make no judgment as to whether this criticism is justified. We
do feel, however, that now may be a good time for the Health System
to determine, through an external review, whether CGSP is functioning
as effectively as it could, especially in light of the standards
of care prevailing elsewhere in the field. Although we are not in
a position to develop a charge for the program review, we suggest
several key questions that should be included:
- What is the most suitable clinical model for providing services
through the CGSP?
- Given recent and ongoing developments in the study of gender
identity, what is the most suitable set of “standards of
care” under which the CGSP should operate?
- Where should CGSP be placed administratively to ensure effective
oversight and the most advantageous linkages within the UM Health
System, given the services CGSP provides?
- Is the current staffing appropriate and sufficient with regard
to credentials and expertise? Depending on program changes recommended
as an outcome of reviewing the program, what staffing changes should
be made?
C2. We recommend that the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Affairs
(LGBTA) office be given additional resources, but that it also be directed
to assume a more central role in improving the climate for TBLG students.
TBLG students widely express great appreciation
for this office and the work that it does. As one website respondent,
who self-identified
as a lesbian, remarks, “I especially appreciate the work and
accessibility of the LGBTA office on campus. I attend programs there
regularly, have my questions answered, and know that they are there
to offer support and advocacy. And that is a good thing!” For
many TBLG students, college involves a difficult rite of passage into
adult sex and gender roles. The LGBTA office provides resources, including
discussion groups, to make this passage considerably less traumatic
than it otherwise would be.
Many students feel, however, that the LGBTA office is insufficiently
funded, and that, more generally, the office needs to be more prominent
in campus life. We agree with both these points, and note with dismay
the recent reduction in the LGBTA budget, which threatens the effective
campus-wide disseminating of information about sexual orientation and
gender identity. Some of our website respondents felt that there was
a clear need for additional LGBTA locations or spaces on campus. As
one remarks, “Centralized information regarding TBLG resources
must be in more locations; it is currently ghettoized in the LGBTA
office, which is viewed on campus as a resource for students but not
for faculty and staff.” A North Campus site would help to counter
the perception, apparently widespread, that this area is less friendly
to gays than the Central Campus. Even if this is not financially possible,
however, many of our respondents believe that, at a minimum, the existing
office needs better funding and expanded staffing.
It is worth considering, in this regard, whether the LGBTA office would
profit from a general reorganization. Currently, it is placed under
the Vice President for Student Affairs – a sensible arrangement
because the office primarily services students. However, even in this
respect, we believe that the LGBTA office should considerably expand
the range of its services. In other portions of this report, for instance,
we recommend a role for it in opening lines of communication to the
Department of Public Safety and to the Department of Intercollegiate
Athletics. The LGBTA office can potentially play a much larger role
in improving campus climate at the margins. Ultimately, the office,
which is and will doubtless remain the principal locus for TBLG advising
and development on campus, needs to be integrated also with the newly
formed Office of Institutional Equity.
It is extremely important for all offices that provide programs and
specialized services to TBLG persons to be sensitive to their other
social identities, for instance, their race, ethnicity, religion, and
physical ability. For this reason we recommend that the LGBTA office,
in liaison with other offices in the Division of Student Affairs and
beyond, expand the range of services responsive to such diversity.
We also urge the LGBTA office to expand its programs with off-campus
fraternities and sororities, which are widely perceived as sources
of anti-TBLG harassment.
C3. We recommend that a small committee be formed to identify the full
range of potential needs and issues that arise when transgender people
change their names, and to develop resources and address problems accordingly.
The Task Force received several comments about the challenge of transgender
students, faculty, or staff who initiate a name change. For example,
this comment was made at the Task Force’s Transgender Town Hall
meeting: “Changing one’s name at the University is very
hard. We should have an interim solution where people can use their
initials only when they’re waiting for a full name change. Even
with the necessary documents, the old name will be around for years.
This is a deeply troubling issue, especially for trans people who aren’t
out.”
We echo and expand upon a recommendation of the Gender Identity Working
Group that a small team of people be formed to identify the full range
of potential needs and issues with respect to name changes and to identify
and implement solutions to those problems. Specifically, such a team
should include the Ombudsperson in the Office of the Vice President
for Student Affairs and representatives from the Office of the Registrar,
the Office of Human Resources Records and Information Services (HRRIS),
Information Technology Central Services, the Office of the Provost,
and other appropriate offices. The people appointed to the team should
hold positions of sufficient influence to help implement the team’s
recommendations.
The team should be charged to undertake the following:
- Explore what the University can do to
assist a newly-admitted transgender student or a newly-hired
transgender staff or faculty
member who is using a new name that aligns with his or her gender
identity but who has not legally changed his or her name. This
should include determining whether the University can accommodate,
within legal constraints, a request from such a person to refrain
from using his or her legal name in official records such as the
UM directory (e.g., the use of a temporary alias or the use of
initials only plus the last name).
- Determine the full range of record changes that need to be made
after a transgender person has legally changed his or her name.
- Determine what steps need to be taken
to be sure all appropriate name changes are made (e.g., develop
a standard procedure for communicating
with a set of designated offices, taking care to protect the person’s
privacy).
- Identify the people and offices that a transitioning or transgender
student, faculty member, or staff member can contact to seek advice,
assistance, and advocacy with respect to name change matters. Recommend
resources on this issue (e.g., fliers or pamphlets and web resources)
that need to be developed for transgender people on this issue.
- Identify the points of highest risk of
the person’s
former name re-surfacing, and recommend how to minimize such occurrences.
C4. We recommend that the Housing Division continue and strengthen
its current efforts to create a welcoming, supportive environment for
TBLG student residents and to respond to homophobic actions.
The Task Force received comments about the University residence halls
from respondents to our website and also in interviews with two male
undergraduate students and a former Resident Advisor. Several concerns
were expressed: a general lack of sensitivity to TBLG residents, homophobic
comments on room door whiteboards, harassing comments and slurs written
on the whiteboards of TBLG residents, residence hall programming geared
to heterosexuals, and insensitive Resident Advisors (a website comment
described one RA as hostile).
The following comments (edited to ensure anonymity) illustrate these
concerns: “As a first year student on campus, my expectation
of the climate for LGBT students when I arrived on campus was that
I would not have to deal with the same issues of intolerance that I
dealt with in high school. Unfortunately, after only a week of living
in the dorms, I received a threat in the form of a [homophobic] note
written on my door. . . I was shocked, frightened, and terribly upset
by this assumption that had been made about me. . . I am not an ‘out’ homosexual,
and did not understand how someone who knew so little about me could
make such an attack.” “When I was a student, I lived in
[residence halls] for two years, always on mixed gender floors. During
the first year, the resident advisor was supportive of LGBT persons.
Although I would occasionally hear a sneer when walking down the hall,
. . . there were no threats. In my second year, the resident advisor
was openly homophobic. . . . One morning, I found a [homophobic, threatening]
note on my board. . . . Fortunately, whoever wrote the note did not
follow through on the threat. Due to the hostile attitudes of the resident
advisor, I was afraid to ask him for help.” “[Speaking
as] a student who has lived in Residence Halls there is still a lot
of slander about roommates who are gay, or certain activities that
take place throughout the school year.”
In discussion with Housing Division administrators, we learned that
the Division is vigorously committed to addressing the housing-related
issues identified by the Gender Identity Working Group. Housing requires
all Resident Advisors and Minority Peer Advisors to enroll in Psychology
405 Social Psychology in Community Settings, a course designed for
residence hall staff. The course includes a class that is designed
to help students examine their personal values, biases, and attitudes
about numerous matters, including sexual orientation. Another class
focuses on identity, LGBT issues, and ally building.
We recognize that the residence hall climate for TBLG students hinges
in part on the beliefs and actions of its residents and that it is
therefore impossible to ensure TBLG residents a problem-free experience.
That said, we strongly recommend that Housing continue its commendable
efforts and that it explore ways to educate staff and students so as
to create the kind of housing experience that all students, including TBLG students, deserve.
We also recommend that the Division develop a policy to govern decisions
with respect to housing assignments for transgender students. First,
however, a means must be developed that permits transgender students
to register for accommodation (see Recommendation IV.A.2 above), an
issue that should be addressed at higher levels of the University Administration.
Once this is accomplished, the Housing Division will need to develop
a policy that specifically addresses housing assignments for transgender
students. We recommend that this be done as soon as possible because,
in the absence of such a policy, the decision-making process, handled
on a case-by-case basis, is bound to be difficult and hurtful to transgender
students.
Finally, we urge that the Division consider designating a section of
a residence hall for students who self-identify within a broad range
of gender identity, similar to efforts recently undertaken at Wesleyan
University.
C5. We recommend that the Facilities and Operations Division ensure
the availability and accessibility of restrooms that provide adequate
safety and privacy for transgender individuals.
Among transgender persons responding to our website or to whom we spoke,
no single issue loomed so large as the provision of unisex (gender
inclusive) restrooms. Three interrelated concerns are in play: restrooms
accommodate private physical needs, but for transgender persons they
are also a potential source of personal humiliation, and at times even
of physical danger. One website respondent caught much of the frustration: “[T]he
UM needs to have gender-neutral bathrooms in every building. Some of
us are just as uncomfortable using single gender bathrooms as the people
who are uncomfortable around us.” Wrote another: “More ‘gender
neutral’ bathrooms are NECESSARY for the safety of students who
do not fit the gender norms. Currently, the only bathroom of this kind
is in the Union (3rd floor). This is a long walk to feel safe while
using the restroom. Unisex bathrooms are easy to create from bathrooms
that already exist – especially one-person bathrooms across campus.
There is NO reason for these to be Male/Female when they can service
all of us.”
Other respondents stressed the lack of availability of unisex restrooms
in most buildings on campus, the inaccessibility of some of the available
unisex restrooms, and the lack of adequate privacy in some of these
facilities.
The LGBTA office has prepared an initial listing of the unisex restrooms
on campus, and hopes to find a way to adequately format and disseminate
this information for use by members of the transgender community. But
this is at best only a temporary measure. The LGBTA list identifies
only 45 buildings with unisex restrooms, and many of these are currently “Men’s” or “Women’s” single-stall
restrooms. In any case, the LGBTA office lacks the resources to maintain
and disseminate an inclusive catalog of unisex restrooms on campus;
this effort would be better taken up by the Facilities and Operations
Division.
We recommend the following measures:
- designate all single stall restrooms on the Ann Arbor campuses
and hospital complex as unisex restrooms, and replace current signage
to indicate this change in status;
- ensure that these unisex restrooms are securely lockable from
within;
- provide full access to these restrooms without keys or combinations,
at least at times when the buildings in which they are housed are
generally accessible;
- prepare and maintain a comprehensive listing of all restroom
facilities on the Ann Arbor campuses, with copies available from
the LGBTA office;
- place signage beside all separate gender
(Men’s and Women’s)
restrooms to indicate the closest location of an unisex restroom;
- revise campus maps, building directories, and
indoor hallway signage to indicate the locations of unisex restrooms;
- renovating existing University buildings to include
unisex facilities, starting with those that are most heavily used;
and
- include at least one unisex restroom on every
other floor of new University buildings.
These changes aim to ensure that transgender persons can always
find, within reasonable proximity, a restroom providing the safety
and privacy that should be afforded to all persons in the university
community,
regardless of their gender and gender identification. Indeed these
facilities should be available to all persons who for whatever reason
require a measure of privacy.
Finally, we recommend that the University begin developing a policy
to provide a modicum of privacy in shower facilities and dressing rooms,
wherever this is possible. We are particularly concerned about dormitories,
recreational buildings, and staff shower facilities.
C6. We recommend that the University expand its current benefits for
TBLG faculty and staff.
The institution in 1994 of domestic partner benefits for gay males
and lesbians represented a fundamental change in University policy,
and one that has been instrumental in attracting and retaining homosexual
employees. Many website respondents express their appreciation. A
typical observation: “I am very pleased with the domestic partner
benefits that are offered to UM staff and have found that very helpful
for our
family.”
At the same time, the value of such benefits is substantially reduced,
and in some cases eliminated, because they are taxed as income. One
website respondent complains that: “As a gay man with a partner,
I’ve found it very difficult to use the partner benefits because
of the large tax liability it would incur (which is not the case for
married couples). It would be great if the University would truly make
partner benefits equally accessible to all employees by including a
tax reimbursement arrangement so that we have the same benefits as
others.” Although many respondents wanted the University to “true
up” benefits through additional payments to offset taxes, we
understand the University’s reluctance to undertake such an
arduous task. We do, however, urge the University to explore creative
alternatives
to alleviate this problem.
At the very least, in any case, we recommend that the Administration
follow one respondent’s advice and “take a stand on issues
such as discrimination in insurance and taxation of benefits.” It
seems unlikely, however, that this problem will be fully solved until
same-sex marriage becomes available.
The University also needs to reevaluate and expand its benefit packages
for transgender persons. At present, faculty and staff benefits are
available only to a limited extent for the actual process of transition,
which can be quite expensive. (Only one health care package available
to faculty and staff fully covers transition issues, and involves
the highest out of pocket expenses of all the available plans. Health
care
plans available to students – UHS services, GradCare – currently
do not include any transgender related health care coverage.) Many
transgender persons believe that access to medical services is a matter
of personal security. Wrote one, “For a female-to-male trans
person, chest surgery is listed as ‘cosmetic.’ Instead,
it’s an issue of safety – men with visible breasts are
much more in harm’s way.” Further, to the extent that
hormone prescriptions are not available as benefits, individuals
may act, in
essence, as their own diagnosticians and purchase drugs cheaply on
the web, which can be extremely dangerous. As it appears, for instance,
M-CARE offers no services related to gender identity disorder except
for psychological counseling. As a consequence, so we are told, doctors
often invent diagnoses so that transgender persons can get the care
they need. It would be helpful if the University were to open negotiations
with health care providers and insurers on this issue.
Same-sex couples who have registered as domestic partners currently
obtain domestic partner benefits from the University, but this arrangement
is not extended to couples in which a transgender member of a committed
opposite-sex partnership is ineligible for legal marriage. We urge
the University to act with compassion in extending domestic partner
benefits to such couples.
Finally, we note that transgender persons may experience considerable
anxiety about completing paperwork relative to benefits. We urge the
Benefits Office to identify specific staff members who are knowledgeable
about and sensitive to transgender people, and that the Office post
this information on its website or provide it in a brochure for transgender
persons.
D. Health Care
D1. We recommend that the University Health Service (UHS) and other
University health care providers considerably expand their efforts
to prevent the spread of HIV and of other sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs).
The Task Force believes that HIV and other STDs are an important
TBLG health care issue on campus because not only do at least fifty
percent of all new HIV infections occur nationally in people under
age 25, but the highest rates of HIV/AIDS cases (52% in Michigan,
but about 70% in our geographic region) occur in the population of
men who have sex with men. These realities make it urgent that we
be as effective as possible in protecting our community from this
scourge. The recent discovery of an outbreak of HIV infections among
the college population in North Carolina indicates what the consequences
could be if we do not remain vigilant.
Currently, UHS offers free, anonymous, and confidential HIV testing
to students; it has provided testing and counseling students to over
one thousand students yearly for the past twelve years. Although
the UHS testing numbers and return rates for results are excellent,
concern has been expressed that most of those tested are the “worried
well,” not necessarily those most at risk. Further, so UHS
staff reports, STD assessments and HIV tests are done through separate
appointments in different locations, thereby decreasing the likelihood
that students will follow through on a physician’s recommendation
of HIV testing. Anonymous HIV testing at UHS is done on a first-come,
first-served basis; students who cannot be fitted in during the testing
hours are requested to return at another time.
We urge UHS to consider taking steps to better reach high-risk populations,
and also to explore the possibility of combining the STD clinical
assessment and the anonymous HIV testing into the same visit and
location.
HIV testing also occurs at other University locations (the University
Hospital Emergency Room, its Primary Care Physicians, and the HIV/AIDS
Treatment Program). For staff and faculty, HIV testing options that
are both anonymous and free are limited to referrals to sites outside
the campus area (community-based organizations like the HIV/AIDS
Resource Center, local health departments, and so on) or the relatively
new testing options offered through the HIV/AIDS Treatment Program
located in Taubman Center. On the other hand, confidential testing
(which becomes part of the subject’s medical record) is available
through Primary Care Physicians at many UM Health Centers; anonymous
testing can be done at UHS for a charge. We urge the various University
health care providers to increase their outreach on this issue to
high-risk faculty, staff, and students, in part by encouraging HIV/AIDS
testing at all sites.
For patients who have HIV symptoms but have not yet been diagnosed,
there is a continuing problem with recognition of HIV-related diseases
and symptoms that would prompt testing. Nationwide, this problem
frequently arises with Emergency Room physicians seeing patients
who repeatedly show in the ER with HIV-related symptoms, but who
do not get HIV-tested. This problem occurs in part because Emergency
Rooms are geared toward treating immediate symptoms; but HIV-testing
requires a follow-up visit to obtain results. The University of Michigan
Health System should make every effort to connect with facilities
within the University that can provide both anonymous and confidential
testing, as well as a point of contact for obtaining results outside
the Emergency Room setting. The staff at the HIV/AIDS Treatment Program
would probably be the best choice to provide testing for Emergency
Room patients.
D2. We recommend that all health services on campus, including the
University Health Service, Psychological Clinic and the Office of Counseling
and Psychological Services, assess their services and take whatever
steps are needed to ensure that TBLG students receive the same level
of services as other students.
While the University Health Service and the Office of Counseling and
Psychological Services have made commendable strides in being sensitive
and inclusive providers, continued efforts are required to provide
the best possible care.
In particular, students who are transgender or who are transitioning
may have serious concerns about their reception when they seek basic
health care services. Offices should take their needs into account,
provide safe ways for them to identify themselves, and ensure they
are treated with care and respect. Sensitivity should be exercised
in the gender designation on forms, language used when referring to
the patient, and knowledgeable treatment by support staff as well as
providers. For certain types of services, it may be best to identify
specific health care personnel who are sensitive to the needs of these
individuals. If specific personnel are identified, the list should
be made readily available to all transgender faculty, staff and students
who may be seeking care by posting them on the UHS website and providing
hard copies to the Office of LGBTA, Counseling and Psychological Services
and UHS urgent care schedulers.
The provision of medical and other transition-related services to transgender
students is complicated and may well have legal implications for the
University. We recommend that a committee be formed to study this issue
and make a set of recommendations, keeping in mind that many students
may not have health care insurance and may have limited financial resources
to seek care outside of the UHS system. If financially feasible options
are not identified for such students, students may end up seeking hormones
through less than optimal means (for example, over the internet) which
does not allow for medical monitoring or follow-up. It is the Task
Force’s opinion that the provision of hormones and routine monitoring
through UHS is well within the practice of primary care, and that every
effort should be made to identify the means to provide this care on
site at UHS. At the same time, the Task Force recognizes that there
are distinct differences in needs between the following populations,
for differing guidelines may be required:
- Transgender people who have already made primary medical decisions
about their gender identity elsewhere, and who are under or have
been under the care and guidance of health care providers outside
the University and are medically stable on maintenance doses of
prescription hormones;
- Students who are minors or young adults (age 18 or over) and
who are questioning their gender identity, but who remain financially
dependent on their families;
- Adults well over the age of 21, free of parental ties, and more
likely to show mature, formulated thinking with regard to their
gender identity and their decision
D3. We recommend that the Medical Campus more vigorously
curb discrimination against TBLG persons.
As we observed in the section on climate (Section III.A), the Task
Force received specific feedback regarding discrimination on the
Medical Campus. At least some TBLG staff and faculty feel that the
Medical Campus is not a safe environment and that being “out” could
impact one’s professional development and advancement. We feel
that medical faculty should serve as models not only by demonstrating
proper respect towards TBLG patients and colleagues but also by actively
discouraging derisive comments made about them. It would doubtless
help if the Medical School curriculum included more information both
on dealing with diverse populations and on social and health issues
specific to TBLG persons. We advise an increase in diversity training
on TBLG issues as part of yearly mandatory and competency training
for all Medical Campus staff.
Furthermore, we have anecdotal evidence of discriminatory practices
in the University Health System’s Emergency Room when a patient
is determined to be transgender, bisexual, gay or lesbian. As one
respondent put it, “The commentary and climate in the operating
rooms should be addressed, particularly in orthopedic surgery.” We
urge a strict guideline that staff not discuss a patient’s
gender identity and sexual orientation unless this is directly relevant
to the patient’s care or medical status. When such information
is discussed, it should be in a respectful manner, and not in public
areas.
The Task Force also received specific complaints regarding accessing
of medical records, a topic of particular concern to the TBLG population.
For example, a gay male wrote that he had been harassed by a co-worker
in the Medical Information department who consulted his file: “I
now do not get seen for medical problems at the Medical center; I
go to a clinic away from the Main Hospital.” We recommend that
Medical Campus staff be strongly reminded that unnecessarily accessing
medical records of anyone, including coworkers, friends, and neighbors,
is grounds for dismissal. Any violation of access to medical information
or breach of confidentiality should be dealt with severely. Along
with increased yearly diversity training on TBLG issues, staff should
be reminded that medical information for these populations is not
to be accessed unless this is specifically necessarily to carry out
work duties.
E. Curricular and Scholarly Issues
E1. We recommend that faculty be urged to integrate TBLG
issues in relevant courses and that existing course offerings
on these issues be strengthened in order to provide both
graduate students and undergraduates with a full and
coherent representation of TBLG scholarship and concerns.
Since the publication of the “Lavender Report” in
1991, the academic study of the culture, history, sociology
and psychology of TBLG peoples has grown exponentially.
The University of Michigan has encouraged scholarship
in these areas, as well as rigorous debate and intellectual
exchange. Some of the leading scholars in the broad area
of TBLG studies are here, ranging from internationally
renowned pioneers in various fields to a range of younger
scholars in the humanities and social sciences. To date,
much of the intellectual energy of these faculty members
has been rather dispersed, with only the Lesbian-Gay-Queer
Research Initiative, funded by the Institute for Research
on Women and Gender, serving as an umbrella organization
to sponsor speakers, forums and conferences. LGQRI has
successfully sponsored speakers with Comparative Literature,
English, History, Germanic Languages, Romance Languages,
Sociology and Women’s Studies. It holds a monthly
Workshop, bringing together faculty and graduate students
to share work in progress and to host guest speakers.
In March 2003 it sponsored with the Institute for the
Humanities a major international conference on the theme “Gay
Shame.” We applaud LGQRI’s efforts to foster
intellectual conversations across disciplines on TBLG
issues, and recommend a sustained effort to bring together
scholars on campus interested in these areas of research.
We also note that to date few speakers have addressed
issues related to bisexual and transgender peoples. Our
public forums indicated a strong desire for speakers
in these areas, as well as for “out” transgender
scholars, regardless of field of specialization.
The College of Literature, Science and the Arts has offered
an academic 15-credit undergraduate minor in “Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Studies” for four
years. This minor is housed in the Women’s Studies
Program, which is in the process of changing its name
to be more inclusive, thus reflecting the changing nature
of current research in gender and sexuality. The requirements
for this minor include one of two gateway courses, and
four electives at the 300-level and above; at least two
of these courses “need to pay primary attention
to material drawn from areas other than post-World War
II USA.” A brief, but by no means exhaustive, list
of courses is included on the WS web page. The Women’s
Studies Program is currently developing a more coherent
curriculum for the LGBT minor, and has added two more
courses for next year, Queer in the Middle East and
Reading Queer. The total number of students taking this minor
remains small; one may speculate that this may be because
of the limited number of available courses and/or because
of limited demand. The gateway course, WS 245: Introduction
to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Studies,
includes the study of transgendered people, but no separate
course exists. A new 200-level lecture course, Introduction
to Sexuality, is at the planning stage. Greater publicity,
a more coherent intellectual profile, and a set of clearly
defined and regularly offered courses would enhance the
visibility of this minor. A survey conducted this past
fall in WS 245 showed strong student interest in upper-division
courses in the areas of legal studies, popular culture,
history and psychology. Fortunately WS plans to offer
an upper-division Sexuality and the Law course annually;
it will include issues of transgender people’s
use of the law. Despite limited resources and faculty
wholly drawn from different departments, a great deal
has been accomplished in a short time.
Particular needs of the undergraduate minor and of graduate
students interested in sexuality studies are tenure-track
faculty members specializing in sexuality and psychology,
US racial/ethnic minority sexuality, and non-Western
sexualities. We recognize that the curriculum in the
health sciences, especially for the M.S.W., B.S.N., M.S.N.,
and M.D. are already very full. Nevertheless, we recommend
that the Schools of Social Work, Nursing and Medicine
insure that all students have at least one unit on sexuality,
including transgender, intersex, gay and lesbian health
issues.
We suggest that the University of Michigan invite a cross-disciplinary
committee of outside evaluators in fields that include
medicine and TBLG studies to examine our curriculum and
to advise the relevant academic units on the further
integration of transgender issues and research into the
curriculum. In order to educate faculty in these areas,
key resource people should be invited for a series of
conversations that could lead to the further integration
of TBLG issues into the curriculum of mental and physical
health care providers.
F. Other Areas of Concern
F1. We recommend that the Department
of Intercollegiate Athletics
and the Recreational Sports Unit
reexamine their policies pertaining
to the safety and participation
of TBLG persons.
Homophobia in intercollegiate
and intramural sports is an issue
of long-standing concern, but
it has only been addressed recently.
As Michael S. Muska, the openly
gay athletics director at Oberlin
College, has observed, “The
reality is that gay student-athletes
and administrators are there,
but they are afraid to come out.
Athletics has been that last
bastion of homophobia. It’s
one of the few places left where
homophobia is tolerated. I think
we have a responsibility to see
to it that every student-athlete
in our programs can feel safe
and respected. And the reality
is that for many of our gay,
lesbian, and bisexual athletes,
it is not safe in intercollegiate
athletics.” We have received
substantial information indicating
that the situation here at Michigan,
although probably better than
at many other institutions, is
materially similar.
In recent years the National
Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), through its program on
Equity, Student-Athlete Welfare,
and Sportsmanship (EWS) Issues,
has begun urging its members
to develop structures and policies
that ensure the provision of
a safe environment for all students,
including student athletes with
diverse sexual orientation. The
NCAA has helped organize a group
called Homophobia in Sports (http://www.homophobiainsports.com)
that is seeking ways to combat
homophobia.
The current cycle of NCAA certification
for the University of Michigan
includes, for the first time,
a request that Michigan examine
its own practices in this area.
We have spoken with members of
the Michigan EWS subcommittee,
who indicate a need for substantially
increased contact between the
athletic department and the LGBT
community, including especially
the LGBTA office. We urge the
Athletics department to vigorously
implement the EWS subcommittee’s
recommendation calling for development
of “a specific, proactive
plan to educate student-athletes,
coaches, and staff about issues
of sexual orientation, and to
provide a safe and supportive
environment for persons of all
orientations.” As the EWS
subcommittee observes, “Michigan
has a special opportunity to
provide national leadership in
regard to this issue. We might
provide a model for institutions
across the nation in regard to
sexual orientation issues.”
In particular, we recommend that
the Life-Skills Workshops, which
Athletics has instituted for
coaches, staff members, and athletes,
be expanded to cover issues of
sexual orientation. In general,
it is important that the Athletics
campus not be perceived as a “free-fire
zone” in which homophobic
feelings can be expressed without
fear of consequence.
The Athletics Department also
needs to develop, in association
with the NCAA, nondiscriminatory
policies for transgender athletes,
perhaps by following the recent
lead of the International Olympic
Committee.
With regard to University intramural
athletics, we note the recent
formation of a student-run Queer
Athletic Council (queergames@umich.edu),
one goal of which is “to
create a safe environment for
LGBT athletes.” Unlike
with intercollegiate athletics,
the University has full control
over intramural athletics through
the Recreational Sports Unit
(RSU). To the extent that harassment
of TBLG persons remains a problem
in intramural athletics, we urge
RSU to examine the problem and
seek solutions to it.
F2.
We recommend that the University
campuses at
Flint and Dearborn undertake
to
assess and improve the
climate for TBLG persons.
Although
this Task Force
confined its
investigations
to the Ann
Arbor campus,
we received
a small number
of negative
comments about
the climate
for TBLG persons
at the two
regional campuses.
The implications
of these comments
appear to be
borne out by
the LGBTA Visibility
2000 study,
which found
widespread
agreement among
respondents
about the scarceness
of TBLG resources
and representations
on both branch
campuses, outside
relatively
isolated centers
for TBLG students.
The result
is a climate
that is perceived
as unfriendly,
even hostile.
One Flint campus
respondent
to the Visibility
2000 study
put it this
way: “The
LGBT Center
is hidden in
a corner. I
don’t
think that
the faculty
and staff encourage
LGBT students
to come to
the LGBT Center
and I don’t
think that
the University
supports LGBT
events to the
extent that
they should
. . . like
with a full-time
staff member
or a decent
budget.”
Dearborn
has no LGBT
Center at all;
it was apparently
dissolved in
the recent
past. More
than half the
Visibility
2000 study’s
respondents
from Dearborn
thought that
there were
either no or
few LGBT resources
available there;
and correspondingly,
the Dearborn
campus was
rated by local
respondents
as markedly
less safe for
LGBT persons
than the Ann
Arbor campus.
We
believe that
the Chancellors
of the branch
campuses should
initiate task
forces similar
to ours in
order to improve
the climate
for TBLG persons.
G.
Implementation
G1.
We recommend
that the Provost’s
Office establish
a TBLG Implementation
and Oversight
Committee
to supervise
the
execution
of the recommendations
in this report.
The
Provost’s
charge asks
us to: “Consider
and report
on ways the
members of
the Task Force
can serve as
an on-going
campus resource,” and
also to: “Make
recommendations
to ensure continuing
attention to
University
policies and
practices with
regard to its
TBLG members
beyond the
work of the
Task Force.” The
importance
of these two
charges emerged
frequently
in our Town
Meetings and
in other discussions
with interested
community members.
It is widely
believed that
earlier University
reports on
TBLG matters
were less effective
than they might
have been because
of the failure
to follow through
on recommendations.
We
believe that
the best way
to accomplish
this goal is
for the Office
of the Provost
to establish
an Implementation
and Oversight
Committee,
chaired by
an individual
in the Office
of the Provost,
which would
assume responsibility
for implementing
the recommendations
in this report.
This committee
should be small
and primarily
administrative
in nature.
Because the
recommendations
are relevant
to offices
and units that
fall within
many of the
vice-presidential
areas, we further
recommend that
the Implementation
Oversight Committee
be given clear
authority to
form Implementation
subgroups,
each of which
would address
an individual
recommendation
or a related
cluster of
recommendations,
as needed.
The
following offices
should be represented
on the Implementation
Committee because
they play an
important role
with regard
to the issues
covered in
this report:
the Office
of the Vice
President for
Student Affairs,
the Office
of Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual,
and Transgender
Affairs, and
the Office
for Institutional
Equity.
We
also recommend
creation of
a separate
but related
TBLG Advisory
Committee,
with a composition
mirroring the
make-up of
the Task Force,
including at
least two students,
one undergraduate
and one graduate.
Such a group
will ensure
ongoing communication
between members
of the TBLG
community and
the Provost’s
Office and
other University
leaders, which
will be essential
to making continual
progress on
TBLG related
issues. We
hope that some
members of
the Task Force
will be willing
to serve on
this advisory
committee.
After
the Implementation
Committee has
accomplished
most of its
goals, the
Office of the
Provost should
formally revisit
its existence.
V.
The University’s
Interactions
with External
Organizations
Embedded
within the
University’s
rules and
regulations
is a commitment
to a set
of social
values.
Some of these
values, such
as freedom
of inquiry
and speech,
are closely
tied to the
University’s
educational
mission.
Others represent
positions
that the
University
as an institution
has taken
with
respect
to broader
social
issues.
Of particular
relevance
is
Regents' Bylaw
14.06 (“Nondiscrimination
and Affirmative
Action”),
which “commit[s
the
University]
to a
policy
of nondiscrimination
and
equal
opportunity
for
all persons
regardless
of .
. . sexual
orientation.” If
our
recommendations
in IV.A are
adopted,
a similar
nondiscrimination
policy
will
arise
for
gender
identity.
In
the course
of its operation,
the University
necessarily
deals with
many external
organizations,
not all of
which may share
its values.
Examples of
these organizations
are the Federal
Government;
the governments
of Michigan
and of Ann
Arbor; private
contractors
doing business
with the University;
labor unions
representing
University
employees;
charitable
organizations
such as United
Way; businesses
in which the
University
invests its
endowment;
and so on.
The University
also interacts
on many fronts
with international
institutions.
On occasion,
the University
may seek to
project its
own values
during its
interactions
with these
external organizations.
Conversely,
it may also
feel obliged
to protect
its own values
against the
possibility
of external
intrusion.
It
is not easy
to isolate
a set of principles
determining
how the University
should conduct
itself in such
interactions.
This problem
has been, in
recent years,
of considerable
importance
to TBLG faculty,
staff, and
students because
many external
organizations
do not share
the University’s
commitment
to nondiscrimination
and equal opportunity
for everyone
regardless
of sexual orientation.
Indeed, some
of these external
organizations
are either
actively opposed
to our commitment
or at least
indifferent.
Recent controversies
over military
recruiters
in the Law
School and
over the United
Way’s
channeling
of money to
Boy Scouts
of America
illustrate
how such conflicts
can play out
in the life
of the University.
On
the one hand,
the University
cannot successfully
play the role
of a “nanny,” stubbornly
insisting that
all other institutions
conform to
its own values;
for one thing,
an active acknowledgement
of the importance
of a pluralistic
social environment
is also among
the University’s
values. On
the other hand,
at times there
is a significant
danger that
the University,
by not pressing
its structure
of beliefs,
or even simply
by remaining
silent, may
seem to betray
its core values,
with significant
adverse consequences
for climate.
Such cases
may seem to
call out for
greater activism
on the University’s
part.
There
is
no
easy
way
to
predetermine
whether
particular
circumstances
require
tolerance
or
aggressiveness.
There
are,
however,
a
number
of
factors
that
may
be
relevant:
- The extensiveness of the University’s
involvement with the external organization. When
contact is only sporadic or short-term, the case for active
engagement is substantially weaker. But as
contact becomes more sustained, the opposite is true. A private
contractor constructing a new building is considerably more tangential
to the University’s operation than is, say, a private charitable
organization that collects money through the University for many
years.
- The nature of the University’s
involvement with the organization. To the extent that
interactions impinge on the educational programs of the University
or on the long-term welfare of our students,
the University’s motives for upholding its nondiscrimination
policies are evidently stronger. Thus, for example, an external
organization that wishes to influence the content of our curriculum
would doubtless face stout resistance if it did not also accept
our basic educational values and goals. So too, in general, would
a job recruiter who sought to discriminate among our students on
the basis of criteria that we reject, such as sex or ethnicity.
- The symbolic character of the involvement. The
University’s
interactions vary considerably in their public character, but some
are so highly visible as to risk causing confusion as to the University’s
internal or external image. For example, the University has traditionally
permitted the local United Way special access to faculty and staff,
even though United Way channels its charitable donations to organizations
that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This is a
long-standing source of frustration for many in the TBLG community.
- The extent of the University’s
leverage. The simple truth
is that the University is at times obliged to interact with external
organizations that adamantly decline to accept its basic values.
This is perhaps most evidently true for University dealings with
various units of the federal government, including most obviously
the Department of Defense, which, in recruiting military personnel,
subscribes to a policy of discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
- The nature and extent of the external
organization’s
non-conformity with University policy. Again, this is
a complex matter. For example, as noted about, United Way does
not discriminate
against persons on the basis of sexual orientation, but it supports
organizations that do.
There is no obvious formula for handling these various types of
interrelationships, nor do we seek to detail the best solution
is in each case. Depending
on the circumstances, the University might wish, for instance,
to adopt one of the following courses of action:
- making a strong statement of our values to the external
organization, without otherwise specifically enforcing our nondiscrimination
policy (this would be a bare minimum);
- negotiating the terms of the business relationship or contract
so as to include, if possible, pertinent nondiscrimination provisions;
or
- declining to enter into a particular relationship or postponing
until agreement is reached on nondiscrimination terms acceptable
to
the University.
It would, in any event, contribute substantially to the climate
for TBLG persons if the University were to develop a greater sensitivity
to situations where external organizations openly discriminate on
the basis of sexual orientation. For example, the University interacts
on many levels and in many units with the Department of Defense
(DOD),
whose employment policies and practices with regard to military
personnel fail to conform to the University’s Bylaw opposing
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In some cases,
such as research
contracts awarded by the DOD, there are likely to be few consequences.
But in the area of military recruitment and the Officer Education
Program, there are obvious and often painful costs.
First, since the DOD operates under a “don’t ask, don’t
tell” policy that discriminates against out members of the
TBLG community, military recruiting on campus directly limits the
employment
opportunities of TBLG students who wish to enter the Armed Forces.
It is likely that, because of current Federal legislation, the University
can do little to alter or affect military recruitment on campus.
The symbolism of military recruiters on campus is of considerable
importance
to TBLG persons, as it is also to the DOD, which has fought for
the right to use recruitment facilities at the University. In this
case,
the University needs to be mindful of the ways in which the active
presence of recruiters can affect the climate for TBLG persons.
Second, and much more significant, is the problem raised by the
on-campus presence of the Army, Navy, and Air Force Officer Education
Programs
(usually called ROTC programs).1 Unlike
the transient visits of military recruiters, these programs are
an integral part of our campus and
our undergraduate curriculum; as well, military officers are treated
for many purposes as faculty. The University needs to acknowledge
how the presence of the Officer Education Programs could give offense
to TBLG members of our University community. The nature of this
offense was well captured by one respondent to our website: “The
presence of so many ROTC troops on campus and the fact that the
military is
discriminatory against LGBT individuals are two factors which make
me uncomfortable. The University allowing ROTC on campus knowing
that they so discriminate means the University is saying that it
has no
qualms allowing discrimination against the LGBT population to occur
on campus, or at least sets a tone suggesting that such discrimination
might be tolerated if it occurred on campus.”
There are doubtless many reasons why the University considers it prudent
to retain the Officer Education Programs. Nevertheless, we recommend
that the Administration acknowledge the implications of this situation
and its potential difficulties for TBLG students. In practical terms,
the University should emphatically communicate to TBLG persons that
its close relationship with and support of Officer Education Programs
is not intended as an endorsement of DOD employment practices. Because
the University engages in this relationship despite these discriminatory
practices, it should also undertake measures to ameliorate the harm
to the campus climate that the relationship occasions. Such measures
might include increased University sponsorship of TBLG events and
organizations, or other appropriate public gestures.
The policies of the DOD are only the most obvious example of legal
discrimination based on sexual orientation. We recommend that the
University remain alert to controversial or potentially controversial
relationships with other external organizations.
VI. Becoming a Model Environment for TBLG People
This entire report has been premised on the aspiration that its title
expresses. We firmly believe that our campus can become a place where
faculty, staff, and students can successfully work and live together
without regard to their individual sexual orientation or gender identity.
We also believe that this transformation can take place in the immediately
foreseeable future. The distance we have traveled already is considerably
longer than the distance yet to go.
Yet we believe, with equal firmness, that reaching this goal will
demand commitment from all of us. In particular, it will demand commitment
from the center, from the Administration; and it is on this point
that we wish now to pause.
The model for what not to do is clear. We think of Michigan as being
always on the forefront when it comes to basic human rights. However,
in the case of sexual orientation, for a long time we lagged behind
our peers. The earliest general University policy prohibiting discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation was issued by President Harold
Shapiro on March 21, 1984, but only after sizeable campus protests
and over the objections of one openly homophobic Regent. This policy
statement proved inadequate to the task of ending discrimination,
and indeed it appears to have provoked increased harassment during
the years that followed. (For information on this period we are indebted
to Tim Retzloff, Outcast, Miscast, Recast: A Documentary History of
Lesbians and Gay Men at the University of Michigan, 1991.)
The turbulence of these years did not finally ease until the next
decade, when in 1991 the Affirmative Action Office issued From
Invisibility to Inclusion (informally called the “Lavender Report”),
a comprehensive consideration of lesbian and gay life at the University.
This report contained sixty-six specific recommendations for change,
of which the first and most important was that: “The Regents
amend Bylaw
14.06 to include a prohibition of discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.” When the Bylaw was finally amended
in 1993, the University of Michigan was close to bringing up the rear
on issues of sexual orientation, but in the next few years the Bylaw
change precipitated a host of other major policy changes, including,
above all, the institution of domestic partnership benefits for same-sex
couples (1994). Although many of the Lavender Report’s specific
recommendations were not finally implemented, those that were adopted
had deep influence in improving life for gay men and lesbians at
Michigan.
We draw one main lesson from this tangled history: that change requires,
as a necessary condition, commitment and leadership from the center,
and above all from the Regents and the Administration of this University.
Our existing TBLG institutions are certainly not lacking in talent
and imagination, but they suffer from their location at the periphery
and from their patently inadequate resources. It is time that the
University moved its oversight and management of TBLG matters more
closely to the administrative center.
On a symbolic level, this point was made to us repeatedly. A website
respondent from Social Work, for instance, eloquently notes: “Some
things I have been moved by at UM that might serve as examples of
what could be done more often: that our President went to the opening ‘bash’ at
the LGBT office last week (I wasn't there, but it felt great to read
about it); that the Dean of the Social Work School attends the opening
potluck event held by the SSW Rainbow students group; that the SSW
Rainbow students group potluck has often been held at the home of
a ‘straight’ faculty member; that administrators have
attended and spoken at coming out day rallies on the Diag. Some things
I wish would have happened: that the UM had lowered the American flag
on the Diag to half-mast when Matthew Shephard was killed (he was
a university student, even though not one of ours); that the President
would attend a ‘coming out’ day rally on the diag and
speak at it[, and] perhaps even walk through the door to ‘come
out’ as GLBT friendly. The point is that the critical mass
need not be formed by only GLBT people. But it must be made of visible
gestures, by public gestures of support as well as more behind-the-scenes
moves, and by people at the top, not just the ones a couple of steps
down.”
Gestures such as the ones this respondent describes clearly resonate.
Even seemingly simple signals may have large symbolic consequence.
A letter from the President, included in freshman orientation materials
and specifically welcoming TBLG students to the campus, communicates
two powerful messages: first, to TBLG students, that they have a
friend in high places; second, to non-TBLG students, that certain
forms of
intolerance are strongly discouraged as contrary to the University’s
ideals. A tone is set that may influence all the subsequent years
of undergraduate education.
But of course, symbolism is not enough. The recommendations we have
made in this report are intended to significantly improve the climate
for TBLG faculty, staff, and students. By and large, we have been
mindful of the current revenue crisis for the University, and we have
tried to confine our recommendations to significant incremental measures
that will effect genuine change without incurring unrealistic financial
burdens. But even if our recommendations are not carried out to the
letter, it is likely that real resources must now be committed to
this effort.
In the end, however, much more meaningful will be the commitment
of effort, of ingenuity, and of will. We call upon those in authority
at the University of Michigan – the Regents, the President,
the Provost, the Executive Officers, the Deans, Directors, and Department
Heads – to bring about what we think is well within reach,
attaining a climate of true acceptance for all TBLG faculty, staff,
and students.
------------------------
1 We
did not interview instrutors and students in the University's Officer
Education Programs, and we do not maintain that as individuals
they share the DOD's views on discrimination against gays. (Back to report)
|
Events Calendar
