University of Alaska Will Decide Whether to Include Sexual Orientation in Non-Descrimination Policy
~In summer of 2009, proponents of the expanded equal rights ordinance stand in front of those wearing red in opposition.
Remember in 2009 when mayor Dan Sullivan vetoed the Assembly’s vote to include sexual orientation and gender identity in Anchorage’s non-discrimination policy for employment, housing, education, and use of public facilities? Many of us do. We sat and watched more than 20 hours of public testimony about it. We rejoiced when the Assembly did the right thing and voted 7-4 to accept the language, and we cried when the mayor decided to embrace bigotry instead of the 21st Century.
Fast-forward to 2011. Let’s hope the University is a bit more enlightened than the mayor.
The Board of Regents of the University of Alaska is meeting in Anchorage and will be accepting public testimony on Thursday, February 17th at 10 A.M. and Friday, February, February 18th at 9 A.M. in the Gorsuch Commons.
… on the agenda is a revision to UA’s non-discrimination policy to include “sexual orientation.” Students, staff and faculty have requested the change for years. About 400 public colleges and universities across the nation have adopted similar language.
He said national trends are heading in the direction of including it as part of the already protected “gender” class, and that the federal government already lists it as a protected class in all federal employee manuals.
“With the elimination of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ from the military, the trend is clear,” the summary reads. “The time has come to acknowledge this protection explicitly.”
It’s not new news that the younger generation for some time now has been far less homophobic than their parents. Now it’s just a question of when the powers that be will catch up. Let’s hope that the backward, archaic thinking that has become the trademark of Dan Sullivan stays confined to the walls of City Hall, and that the open-minded and the educated prevail on campus.
The Regents passed it this morning, 8 to 2. Despite much effort by the LGBT and allied community, they did not include specific mention of gender identity.
While I applaud the step into adding sexual orientation into the bylaws of the uni system, it’s a step that isnt far enough. The bylaws should also add gender identity. As a transgender person, the discrimination that we face on a daily basis is just wearing, and all pervasive.
Has a final decision been made? I hope it’s the RIGHT one (NO to discrimination!).
Hopefully, Dapper Danny Sullivan doesn’t have any friends on the board of regents. Remember the fiasco in the assembly. Debbie Ossiander allowed a filibuster until Danny boy could get in to office with his veto pen.
I saw her at the home show, and for some reason the evil thought crossed my mind. I wanted to ask her if she felt it fair to discriminate against overweight or unattractive people. Just saying, you never know which group will be next Debbie.
I think they should organize a pro gay rally, wear their rainbow clothes, etc, surround the anti gay protesters that show up with red shirts and signs, and then strip off their rainbow shirts to show red ones and hold up huge signs that say, “wear red if you love gays!” 🙂
It’s time for us to reclaim red as an inclusive, non discriminating, tolerant color!
I love the idea, Baker’s Dozen! Just like I love the idea of using the term “ObamaCare” as a GOOD thing — if the right-wingers want to attach POTUSs name to it, let them; since it’s attached to a whole slew of positive, necessary, and direly needed changes and innovations in our healthcare system, I say: Use it! beth.
This is fairly off topic for me but I would just add by way of suggesting that the US is not really a very well adjusted society that Brasil in the 1970’s was far more tolerant and inclusive with respect to gay people than we are today. And that was under a military dictatorship. But then too, as I recall Brasil was also far less racist than the US at that same time though much more heterogeneous in those terms.
Just a couple of observations.
I hope that while the Regents are discussing the issue of discrimination, and updating their list of protected groups that they make the list broader than just adding sexual orientation. They should also add gender identity and transgendered persons as well.
AKM: do you know where public testimony can be submitted, preferably via e-mail? I’m a UAA alumnus and would like to send in comments as such. Thanks!
Just now putting equal rights for sexual orientation on their agenda is so 1970s of them.
Let us hope that the Regents show that they are as enlightened as those they claim to be ‘instructing’. There is a claim that we need to furnish our ‘youth’ with role models and this is a great chance for them to be one instead of just talking about it.
“John” you make a good point and maybe if we all start asking those who speak to this as being a ‘choice’ that same question it will be a ‘lightbulb moment’ for others, I doubt it will for them.
It’s non-discrimination. There’s no e in discrimination.
I remember when it was legal to ask a woman about her plans to marry and have children when interviewing her for a job. Now it is taken for granted that a question like that is illegal. That kind of blatant discrimination today would bring a quick trip to the courthouse. Instead, today, it is OK to make sure that the woman is married to the appropriate partner, as defined by the religious right.
Sexual orientation is not a choice. But if it were, I would still be opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is such an important aspect of someone’s life that if they choose a particular orientation, we shouldn’t discriminate against (or for) them based on that choice. Just like we don’t discriminate for against someone based on their choice of religion.
But I’m confident that it is not a choice. After all, I don’t know a single heterosexual who can point to at time when he or she made a choice about their own sexual orientation. I’d love to ask Sarah, “When did you choose your sexual orientation?”
typo alert: Check the spelling of non-discrimination in the title.
What’s there “to decide”? Is the applicant a human; have a navel? And is the applicant qualified for employment, housing, education, and use of public facilities as is being offered to every one? What the heck is there “to decide”? beth.
Beth, I am shocked! Are you saying you don’t support equality for clones?
I hope discrimination against the LGBT community ends soon.
Sarah Palin and all the others who proclaim America as the best country in the world should be leading this trend towards non-discrimination. There are few things as embarrassing to our country as having laws on the books discriminating against particular segments of our population.
The time for this foolish discrimination to end is upon us.
I hope we rise to the challenge and embrace all our citizens as equals, regardless of sexual orientation.
We’ve been working on racism and ageism, coming closer to accepting people not on their outward appearance but on their character and talents, giving more people a chance to contribute to and enjoy the rights of citizenship. We can’t stop aging, we can’t change our race – why would we blame others for their sexual orientation when that is not a choice, simply part of who they are.
If we are to live up to the best of our ideals, we need to ensure equality is not a concept applied to some and not others.
I wish Mayor Sullivan and all those self-proclaimed Christians who supported excluding gays come to realize how backward, outdated, impolitic and non-Christian their views are