Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

A Reason to Move

March 25, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Imagine that you are looking for a job. Imagine that you are good at what you do, and you have a choice of opportunities. Imagine being offered jobs that were comparable in almost every way, but located in different states.

In one state, you and your spouse would be able to use a family health insurance plan, visit each other in the hospital, and have a relationship and family that was legally recognized. In the other state, your spouse would have to buy separate health insurance, and there would be no guarantee that doctors, hospitals, lawyers, banks, schools, or anyone at all would recognize your relationship or family.

It’s hard to imagine that anyone would select the second option. And yet, states seem to be lining up to become the next to do away with any recognition of, or benefits for, same-sex relationships. It will be difficult to track the economic impact of these new laws. Some gay and lesbian faculty members will stay put, either because of limited opportunities elsewhere or because of their roots in their communities. But there are also academics who will vote with their feet, and leave institutions in such states.

I left a state that did not recognize my relationship in favor of one that did. I was hired as an assistant professor of biology by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2001. Although I knew that Virginia was a conservative state, I found the department to be very friendly and supportive. Colleagues were welcoming toward my partner, and we enjoyed living in the area.

I believe that I contributed substantially to teaching, research and grant funding during my time at Virginia Tech. In three years, I taught hundreds of students, involved over 40 undergraduates in research, and was awarded over a half million dollars in competitive grants from the National Science Foundation. Most of these funds went toward hiring and training undergraduate and graduate students in Virginia.

During those three years, however, my partner and I paid thousands of dollars for private health insurance when my partner was working part time, because she could not get those benefits through me. We did all we legally could to provide ourselves with the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, including the right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions for each other. But we wanted to have a family, and in Virginia we could not both be legally recognized as parents of our future children.

Because it seemed clear that laws of Virginia were not going to change in any way beneficial to us in the near future, I went on the job market in 2004. I was offered an exciting position at a university in Massachusetts, which had just become the first state where same-sex couples could get married. By contrast, around the same time the Virginia legislature passed the "Marriage Affirmation Act." This bill outlawed any same-sex "partnership contract or other arrangements that purport to provide the benefits of marriage." Under some interpretations, this law negated the medical powers of attorney we had obtained to guarantee hospital visitation in case of emergencies.

Virginia Tech attempted to retain me in my position with a counter offer, and my partner and I had several discussions about what it would take to convince us to stay. In the end, we concluded that no amount of salary, extra funds, or other benefits would counteract the risk that our relationship might not be recognized in a time of crisis. While some businesses, schools or hospitals might acknowledge our relationship, we were not willing to risk that they would not. If they did not, the laws of Virginia would support them.

When I announced my departure, I received an e-mail from an administrator who told me that others had left for similar reasons, but had done so quietly. I spoke out about why I was leaving, and I'm writing this article because I believe it's important for educators and politicians to understand that discriminatory laws have a price.

My partner and I moved to Massachusetts and promptly married. Naturally, I have moved my research and whatever funding could be transferred to my new institution, and I am building a federally funded program in my new home. In my first six months, I've brought in more than $150,000 in competitive national grants.

Our primary reason for leaving Virginia was to gain the rights that come from legal recognition of our relationship and future family. It is clear that we would not obtain those rights in the near future in Virginia. States that choose to discriminate against their same-sex couples will continue to lose valued citizens to states that provide the same rights to all individuals, couples and families.

Lynn Adler is an assistant professor of entomology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on A Reason to Move

  • Hate Law Comments
  • Posted by TJ Fergus on June 17, 2005 at 5:42pm EDT
  • T Edward's response misses the point.

    There is no denying that there is unequal treatment of same-sex relationships in various states in the country. Whether or not this is a "majority" viewpoint does not make it right. It is also not a matter of being "automatically superior". It is a matter of being decent and treating all people the way any reasonable person would wanted to be treated. All that these couples ask for is what traditional marrigaes have been afforded, without question. The simple truth of the matter is that same-sex couples should be given the same rights and privileges that heterosexaul marriages are given. If not, places like Virginia Tech, will continue to lose talented and (just as important) good people.

  • Posted by Ellen Bass , Assistant Professor at University of Virginia on June 24, 2005 at 11:40am EDT
  • Thank you for this statement. We need to archive these lost opportunities of the states that discriminate. These types of stories help when we meet with media, legislators, etc. who want to know how the law impacts the states and its citizens.

  • Do they care?
  • Posted by Science Prof at Blue State U on March 28, 2005 at 1:17pm EST
  • I guess the real question is whether they (the universities or the states involved) actually care. Given the apparent intelligence level of most state legislators, especially ones of the sort that passed Virginia's Hate Law, I would imaginethe politicians do not. Also, with academic hiring being as it is, the university can probably reasonably easily replace gay people who leave.

    Did your university say anything about trying to fix this situation? If they are a state institution, they probably can't risk it.

    The real issue is whether those not directly affected by those laws (that is, your straight friends) also find them a turn-off and are harder to recruit or retain. THAT might be enough to be a movement, and get noticed.

    Good luck in MA.

  • Hate Law?
  • Posted by T. Edwards on April 7, 2005 at 10:01pm EDT
  • The fact that you refer to the will of the people of Virginia as 'hate,' shows just how much much you value the opinion of the 'people.' One doubts that you would refer to the will of the people of Madison, Boulder, etc... as 'hetero-phobes.' The fact is that some people have hundreds, if not thousands, of years of deeply held religious beliefs that are behind their thinking, yet you presume that your morally relativist (and historically recent) stance is automatically superior. You may be right about the gay marriage and domestic partner laws being discrinatory, but your language reveals your disdain for the majority of the population.

  • Hate Laws
  • Posted by Z. Adams on May 3, 2005 at 9:11am EDT
  • Yes, 'hate' laws, regardless of the 'majority' view. As a point of reference, consider Virginia's odious past:

    "Virginia judges continued to defend anti-miscegenation laws for decades. In 1955, the State Supreme Court of Appeals decided that the laws served legitimate purposes, including: "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride."

    The trial that eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where anti-miscegenation laws were overturned, involved a Virginia couple, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. On January 6, 1959, they pleaded guilty to the charge of miscegenation, and were sentenced to a year in jail, which they could avoid by leaving Virginia and staying out for 25 years. The trial judge said:

    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

    The Lovings left Virginia for awhile, but in 1963 they challenged the law in Federal court. When the anti-miscegenation laws were finally toppled in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court said (in Loving v. Virginia) that distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry was "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." [http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap07.html]

    Interracial marriage is commonplace in Virginia now, and though some still view it with suspicion and loathing, it is legal.

    Finally, I question the use of the word 'majority'; rather, I contend that we are dealing with a small percentage of our population--the politicians--that is pandering to a somewhat larger percentage of the population. Discrimination against a class of people is, however, still discrimination, and it should be illegal, not state supported.