Search News


Browse Archives

News

Long-Fought Win for Gay Rights

September 18, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Missouri State University's board on Friday added sexual orientation to the list of factors on which the institution barred bias. The 5-3 vote followed debate that included denunciations of the gay "sexual lifestyle" and years of intense discussion of the issue.

Missouri State's board -- pushed by the university's former president -- had for years rejected the idea that the university needed to protect its gay students and employees from discrimination. And the board did not act even when a letter from the former president surfaced in which he called homosexuality a "biological perversion."

With Friday's vote, Missouri State joins hundreds of colleges -- 562 according to the latest study by the Human Rights Campaign -- that bar bias based on sexual orientation. That group includes Missouri's flagship, the University of Missouri at Columbia.

University officials announced that they weren't changing the policy -- just clarifying it, apparently in reference to past statements where they said gay students and employees were covered by the policy even without a specific reference. And the university also added provisions, apparently designed to fend off conservative criticism of its move, specifying that the new provision couldn't be used to question the policies of religious or military groups. That tactic didn't work, and the governor promptly criticized the board for giving in to "forces of political correctness."

The policy on which Missouri State's board voted Friday is its basic non-discrimination statement, which includes a broad pledge that the university doesn't consider "any basis" not related to educational requirements or job qualifications when evaluating students or employees. But the policy also includes a list of specific grounds on which the university wouldn't discriminate: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, and veteran status.

On Friday, the university added sexual orientation to that list, and also added political affiliation. In addition, Missouri State added a sentence saying: "This policy shall not be interpreted in a manner as to violate the legal rights of religious organizations or military organizations associated with the Armed Forces of the United States of America." On some colleges, gay students have challenged religious or military groups that discriminate against gay people.

Missouri State's action followed more than a decade of fighting on the issue. Missouri State's new president, Michael T. Nietzel, endorsed the move.

Mark Richter, chair of the Faculty Senate and a professor of chemistry at Missouri State, said that professors had overwhelmingly approved measures two years ago and four years ago to call for the anti-bias policy to explicitly cover gay students and faculty members. Richter said that faculty sentiment remains strongly behind the move to expand the non-discrimination policy.

But John Keiser, who was president from 1993 to 2005, had repeatedly opposed the change, saying that it wasn't necessary and that discrimination on the campus was not a problem. That stance became particularly hard for student and faculty leaders to accept when The Springfield News-Leader in 2004 printed a letter Keiser had sent an alumnus in 1995, saying that homosexuality is a "biological perversion," and adding that he has "always believed that homosexual or lesbian acts are intrinsically disordered, contrary to natural law, and cannot be approved." After the letter was published, Keiser said that it reflected views based on his Roman Catholic faith and did not suggest any need for the anti-bias policy to protect gay people. Gay leaders called the letter a "smoking gun" showing why explicit protection was needed.

The former president's statement created "a climate of fear" for gay and lesbian faculty members, said Holly A. Baggett, associate professor of history and president of the Lambda Alliance, the organization of gay faculty and staff members. "It was a very oppressive atmosphere to have the president say that," said Baggett. While she said that there are many gay people working at Missouri State, "most stayed closeted, for fear that they could be hurt in tenure and promotion."

She praised Nietzel, the new president, for having "a more sophisticated outlook," and said that officials realized that if they wanted to recruit the best faculty talent, they needed to get past this issue. "This was an embarrassment," she said.

Some conservative politicians in Missouri immediately denounced the university's shift on Friday. Gov. Matt Blunt issued a statement in which he said that Missouri State's "ever-increasing enrollment is proof that a diverse student body feels welcome on campus," adding that the change was "unnecessary and bad."

Will Hader, co-president of the Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Alliance at Missouri State, said that the policy shift was needed. A senior from Kansas City, Hader said that most students and professors were supportive, but that the surrounding community was not. He also said that the former president's comments showed why specific protection was needed, saying that it sent a very powerful message to students to learn that their institution's leader held "such archaic views."

The criticism from the governor is to be expected, Hader said, adding that he and other students were thrilled by the board's action. "After so many years of fighting, it's absolutely excellent."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Long-Fought Win for Gay Rights

  • The bigger picture
  • Posted by MD 2 BE , A short term solution at SLU on September 23, 2007 at 8:30pm EDT
  • Dear concerned:

    I was a member of the SGA of SMSU during 2001-2002 and possibly 2003. I recall the debate being brought up several times, and seveal quite emotional proponenets of the clause change tried to sway those who were neutral. I am not ashamed to say that I voted against the clause change, possible more than once.

    First of all, let us put the former president's words aside. That wasn't the SMSU that I remember, and it will never be that SMSU again. Furthermore, let me also say that BiGALA was quite active during my 3.5 years there, and I was happy to see it.

    However, they did make quite a scene before and after this didn't pass. I disagree with their reaction to both the problem of any anti-homosexual bias in the university and the rejection of the clause change.

    By reacting to it in such a way that it singled out the homosexual student population as an "other"/unrepresented group, they chose a conterintuitive solution. What they did was create a situation where the differences in culture (and some my use the vague term "morality" here) between hetro- and homosexual lifestyle were ostensibly higher than ever, when in reality nothing had changed. Integration has always been one crux of the problem of racism in America. Take Chicago for example: Racism has been all but eliminated on the North side, where some integration has been successful. The Southside, excluding Hyde Park doesn't catch the same light. And by BiGALA announcing to the student population that not only are they gay, they are also an easier target of marginalization than anyone ever thought.

    Anti-homosexual bias in America will see a reduction after the conservative moment has passed, and the urban influences of East and West coast attitudes on the issue will soon trickle back to the heartland. By screaming and envelope-pushing to get clause in a university, just like any university, cannot fully enforce it's rules (circa 2002, residence halls were filled with smoke of all kinds) BiGALA seemed to be further separating itself from the community, when their true goal should have been education and integration.

    BiGALA seemed to be successful in providing a confidant and place of security for their community, but it certainly failed at integrating itself with the rest of the community, who they apparently perceived to be discriminatory. In my opinion, they should have been spending their time making students aware they are just like everyone else instead of opting for the short term solution to a long term goal.

    Again, I stand by this decision, and my gay friends (one of whom I have known since childhood) support my decision to feel this way. They too agree that the more intellecual answer is to leave the sexual orientation clause out, and work on making the world a more tolerant place through other means than words on paper, which throughout this country's history have proved to have a null or slightly negative effect.

  • Not suprised
  • Posted by Jeff on September 18, 2006 at 11:25am EDT
  • It is a shame that the governor of Missouri is so backward thinking, but it does not suprise me in the least. This is the same governor that ordered confederate flags to be flown http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Jun/20050604News012.asp.

    He says the university has more pressing issues but obviously his office does not have issues bigger to handle than to release a statement endorsing his right wing backward thinking political agenda.

  • Posted by Jeanne Thomas on September 18, 2006 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I left Missouri State (then Southwest Missouri State) because of the absence of protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation -- among other reasons. I've followed developments at the campus ever since, and I'm delighted to hear this news. It's a wonderful institution, and does a lot of important things right. The faculty, staff, and students should be commended for not giving up on this issue. Go Bears!

  • Posted by Larry on September 18, 2006 at 5:40pm EDT
  • I am not quire sure whether the display of the confederate flag – a purely symbolic gesture, by anyone’s account – is the same as legally enshrined substantive discrimination.

    Since Ms. Thomas left a school for a variety of reasons, only one of which was the lack of a “policy” it is difficult to tell whether she actually was discriminated against.

  • hooray!
  • Posted by shannon , res life at AWC on September 18, 2006 at 10:55pm EDT
  • Hooray! this is wonderful news! I can't wait till the day the entire country has such policy in place... and better yet, I can't wait for the day when such policy may not be needed anymore. If only people would realize, if you are lucky, you may be on this planet for 100 years... doubtful, but maybe... why spend your years making the lives of others challenging?

  • Posted by Maya on September 19, 2006 at 5:25am EDT
  • okay, so this is my question:

    if there is already no descrimination occuring, according to school officials,then WHATS THEIR REASON FOR OPPOSING THE DAMN SENTENCE AND A HALF?

    Larry, let me reply to something really quickly:

    1) the confederate flag has never been "a
    purely symbolic gesture, by anyone's account". are you kidding me? it stands for an unbending support of racism and descrimination... D'oh! (yes, that's the duh version of homer simpson. do you see how ridicules that is? good)

    2) even if ms. thomas did leave the school for several reasons, she NEVER claimed she was decriminated against. you totally bipased the issue of the open loop for sexual orientation descrimination that she addressed.

    if you ask me, IF THERE'S REALLY NO DESCRIMINATION GOING ON, WHATS SO WRONG WITH THE NEW RULES? IT SIMPLY PREVENTS ANY FUTURE DESCRIMINATION, unless of course the nice gov and all those who share his views don't want to prevent descrimination.

  • Maya conceded the point
  • Posted by Larry on September 19, 2006 at 7:55am EDT
  • Maya, In your reply you conceded the point. By stating the confederate flag “stands for” something, you concede that it is symbolic. Unless someone was hit over the flag with a confederate flag, it would not be symbolic.

    (Also, the confederacy ended over 100 years ago, and their position on homosexual discrimination was never made clear.)

    Ms. Thomas did not provide a specific example of discrimination. She said there was an “absence of protection” but she didn’t state any actual discrimination.

    I am sorry to have made you so upset that you were forced to write in large letters, but as someone who actually needs to deal with real issues of discrimination, I would probably prefer specifics.

  • Posted by Amanda D Allen at University of Central Arkansas on September 19, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • I was suprised by the 562 number. In 2003 there were 4,500 accredited and degree granting institutions. It is troubling that only 562 are updated in their discrimination policies.