Jim Andris, Facebook

Andris letter to Alestle correcting the reporting

Foundations of Education
Education Division
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Edwardsville, Illinois 6202512/10/74

3/3/75

The Alestle

To the Editor:

The Alestle has been very supportive in covering news and printing informative articles regarding gay rights and affirmative action. Unfortunately, the Friday, Feb. 28 issue was very misleading. The front page headlines read "Gay Rights To Be Included in Affirmative Action." This is simply untrue. Even reading the article printed below the headlines would fail to confirm them.

What follows is closer to the truth. The Alestle did report my comments fairly accurately. In response to Michael Gimmel and I (and this was reported in the Edwardsville Intelligencer), Mr. Davis said that the University was considering an inclusion of a general guarantee that every personnel action will be based on job related characteristics alone and not on personal characteristics of the individual which do not relate to job performance. He said that he had discussed this matter with a representative of the Board of Trustees, and that he had recommended the inclusion of such a policy to President Rendleman.

To my mind this solution to the problem of discrimination against gays is totally unacceptable.

1. It leaves unanswered the question of whether being gay is a characteristic which relates to job performance. Many people believe that it does.
2. It does not make a parallel attempt to confront discrimination against gays along with women and racial minorities.
   • For example, deans and chairpersons need to be sensitized to the unique problems of discrimination against gays.
   • The University should advertize in gay and gay related publications as an equal opportunities employer including gays.
   • There are many other ways in which a positive affirmative action program would confront the issue.

There is another reason why this solution is unsatisfactory. Why not just do away with the whole affirmative action program and have a single statement to the
effect that no one will be discriminated against? That would solve all the problems. Then the power elite could go right on discriminating against women, racial minorities, and gays, and the discriminated groups would have the "word" of the administration that they would not suffer discrimination.

When the proposed gay solution is translated into what it would mean for women and racial minorities, the stark discrimination in the proposal stands out. In fact, it makes one wonder what would be done about discrimination against women and racial minorities if there were no federal requirements.

In truth, the administration appears to be, by its actions, fighting with all its might to keep the word "gay" out of the affirmative action plan. That is what I conclude, at any rate, and I interpret it as proof that discrimination against gays is a reality on this campus.

Why such a desparate fight? I would like to make some suggestions, which I emphasize, are only possibilities and not necessarily true. One possibility is that some
of the real concerns are about the effect of inclusion of gays in affirmative action on public opinion and funding of the University. Another possibility is out and out discriminatory attitudes on the part of the administration. Finally, maybe they just haven't gotten adequate information to see how serious this problem is.

I would suggest that the moral issue involved here, equal treatment for all human beings, outweighs any concern for public opinion and funding. Second, f there
are discriminatory attitudes or lack of information hindering the doing of justice, then those discriminatory attitudes should be confronted and the necessary information obtained.

Sincerely yours,

James F. Andris
Assistant Professor