Curriculum
We asked several questions concerning the desirability of incorporating gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues into the University curriculum. fully two-thirds (67%) of the respondents agreed that the experiences of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals should be included in currently offered classes when relevant to subject matter. There was particularly strong support among the teaching staff for this: sixty-nine percent of the faculty were in favor as were 83% of the graduate teaching assistants. Only 15% of the teaching staff disagreed, while 16% were uncertain.
On the question of whether the University should offer courses in GLB studies, the respondents were fairly evenly split between "yes" 32%), "no" (38%), and "don't know" (28%). On this matter, teaching staff were also less enthusiastic, perhaps because of their unfamiliarity with the possible content such courses. Twenty-eight percent of the faculty and 42% of the graduate assistants favored the courses.
A number of respondents cited financial criteria to explain their opinions: "With budget problems," one wrote, "I'm not sure separate courses would be a high priority for me"; "No," wrote another, "due to budget considerations only." Repeated budget cutbacks are a serious concern on our campus at this time. It's worth noting, however, that complaints about cost have been used as way to avoid new programs almost anytime change has threatened the status quo (e.g. we can't afford equal access to education, we can't afford multilingual ballots, we can't afford women's studies).
Despite budgetary arguments for not creating new courses, respondents recognized a need for further education about the GLB minority. Given the perceived intolerance of students, it was not surprising that most survey respondents supported presentation to student groups to encourage respect for the civil rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Sixty percent thought the new students, residence groups, and Greek organizations should be given such presentations. Twenty-one percent disagreed and 16% weren't sure. Several thought Greek organization were in particular need: "I'm certain that gay-bashing occurs on campus from macho fraternities" (this from a heterosexual respondent). It's also worth noting that support for GLB presentation was often placed in the context of presentations promoting equal rights for all: "For all civil rights of everyone!"; "all minority groups should be represented"; "concurrent emphasis on other civil rights, and cultural differences"; "Should be done for all protective (sic groups, not just one, and not one [presentation] for each group," and so on.
Employee Policies and Benefits
Questions about extending employee benefits to "same sex domestic partners" and "domestic partners in committed heterosexual relationships" raised two concerns for respondents. A few worried about how the state would pay the extra people covered; far more were concerned about the legal status or definition of "domestic partner." Many of these suggested that marriage is the only reasonable status upon which to offer partner benefits to anyone, though this response ignores the discriminatory impact of such a policy on gays and lesbians, who are unable to attain married status in the state of Arizona. Workable definitions are not impossible to come up with, of course; a number of corporations and municipalities have done so, a subject we will take up in the Recommendations section of this report. Even given their budgetary and legal concerns, over half of the respondents felt that benefits should be extended to same sex and to opposite sex domestic partners (52% for both). Slightly more than a quarter disagreed, feeling that no domestic partners (28% for same sex, 27% for opposite sex) should be accorded benefits.
When asked whether they favored an affirmative action policy that would protect employees from discrimination based upon sexual orientation, almost three quarter (73.2%) of all respondents felt this would be a good idea. A minority were unsure (18%) and a small number were against this form of protection (7%).
If you have comments or suggestions, email matkin@ccit.arizona.edu