Jim Andris, Facebook

Initiative to Include Homosexuals into the SIUE Affirmative Action Plan (1975)

This story is preceded in Initiative to Include Homosexuals into the SIUE Affirmative Action Plan (1974).

Continuing to lobby for a statement of non-discrimination

On January 27, 1975 [from a memo of understanding] Andris wrote Davis about three points made by Andris in their phone conversation of that date. 1) The phrase "sexual orientation and affectual preference" is gaining currency within the gay rights movement, 2) "I cannot postpone my educational campaign, and so have decided that I will begin disseminating information to the University Community," and 3) Andris complained that his proposal had been misunderstood by members of the AA Task Force, and that "my main concern was with getting the general policy statement written into the plan."

By this time, it seemed really apparent to Andris that the one block to having a general statement of non-discrimination was the President's Office. Andris also had pretty good idea that the reasons for this were not only concern that actually using the word "gay" in such a positive and public way would be unpopular, but also that there were non-resolved issues about the limits of being "out," public about one's sexual orientation. Frankly, the rule of the time was that gay people were expected to be "discrete" about their "private" lives, and Andris was challenging that rule. He continued to enlist other support and also continued to pursue his campaign to educate as many people on campus as he could.

Andris had also earlier supported the Faculty Organization for Collective Bargaining that had formed earlier in the decade, and several of his close friends had been quite politically active with that organization. The FOCB had been formed precisely because many of the decisions that had been made regarding tenure, promotion and salary increase seemed arbitrary, meaning that there didn't seem to be a consistent set of criteria for these decisions. So Andris turned to the FOCB for support, and by February 19, 1975, he had a strong letter of support from the FOCB Executive Council that contained the statement: "We therefore strongly recommend that the Affirmative Action Task Force undertake a thorough revew of the Proposed Affirmative Action Plan with a view to incorporating, wherever appropriate, assurances of gay rights."

Andris also had been negotiating with the Alestle editorial staff to print a series of articles which he would write and which were intended to educate the campus about the gay community and its issues. Unfortunately, Andris did not take notes and does not have a sharp recall of those details. John Harizol, a student from Granite City was Editor-in-Chief at the time. Andris had originally requested a two-week series, but the one that finally was approved ran from 2/3/75 to 2/8/75. He was allowed to also write an introduction, and the Alestle editorial staff wrote two additional supportive articles. In Andris' introduction he made the bold move to expose the process that he had gone through to get a statement of non-discrimination in the SIUE Affirmative Action Plan that was being developed, the support he had garnered from the Welfare Council, and the resistance he had experienced from the Administration. Read about this in more detail in the Main Article on Alestle Series on Homosexuality.

Andris had forged a relationship with Gertraude Wittig, then President of the Metro East Chapter of NOW, and they had been working on extensions to the Affirmative Action Plan that implemented education. "The only effective program for dealing with discriminatory practices is one which confronts discrimination at all these levels: that is, one which disseminates relevant information, provides opportunity for self-confrontation with respect to discriminatory practices (and in the case of administrative agents of the University, requires such self-confrontation) and encourages the development of sensitivity to and empathy for discriminated individuals." [Taken from the document "Education and Affirmatve Action," Andris & Wittig, p.1] However, as events continued to unfold, it became more clear that the Administration was focused almost completely on meeting the new federal legal standards for affirmative action within legally protected categories. And, taken by itself, this was a good thing, because differential employment data on hires, tenure, promotion by race and sex would be gathered and analyzed, goals would be set, and future such decisions would be scrutinized for evidence of good faith efforts to hire unrepresented groups. Also tenure and rank decisions would receive more scrutiny for evidence of discriminatory attitudes.

SIUE initially refuses a statement of non-descrimination

On February 25, 1975 the Senate hosted a public meeting for discussion of the Affirmative Action Administrative Plan, and subsequent to that hearing, even though many revisions by various concerned individuals were suggested, the plan moved forward to the execution stage. A complete account of this process is way beyond the scope of this article which will simply track the progress toward protection against discrimination for reason of sexual orientation.

Several attendees at that meeting questioned the statistics, gathered from the years 1960-69, that the plan was based upon. Unversity Legal Counsel Davis defended their use, which had been approved by the US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. George Henderson, representing the Faculty Organization on Collective Bargaining made a number of suggestions. Both Andris and Michael Gemmell, President of Students for Gay Liberation, spoke at length for the inclusion of protection of gay rights in the plan. Davis reiterated that the University was focused on legally protected classes, that the Task Force was not a policy making body, and that the plan as it stood was realistic.

The Alestle published a report of that meeting on February 28. Unfortunately, though the coverage of what happened in that meeting by the Alestle was fairly accurate, whoever put the big, bold headline on the article got it wrong: "Gay Rights to be included as part of Task Force plan." Andris had to write a critical letter giving a more accurate account, and he used the opportunity to reiterate the reasons for his concern.

SIUE agrees to statement of non-discrimination

President Rendleman's legal counsel had advised him that a public disclaimer in the Plan regarding discrimination against homosexuals was advisable. When the Plan came out on April 16, 1975, "the plan's first article was also revised. It now contained a clause designed to prevent discrimination due to sexual preference and other 'private social or political attitudes.' The revision was made because of concern expressed by gay liberationists on campus." [Edwardsville Intelligencer]

They had made the least difficult concession to Andris' persistent campaign. That this statement was in the Affirmative Action Plan signalled that Administration would seriously consider complaints where this kind of discrimination was suspected. However, it is hard to assess the effectiveness of this move, because it left so many questions unanswered. Andris wrote a long letter to the Alestle describing the questions he had put before the President and his Legal Council:

"Is having a preference for a sexual partner of the same sex or a preference for a sex-related role usually adopted by a person of the opposite sex a personal consideration not legitimately related to job-performance?

"Does the affirmative action policy quoted above protect gay people against discrimination for a) forming or joining an organization devoted to social or political activities intended for gay persons, b) living with a person of the same sex in a sexual relationship, c) announcing to others, including students, faculty, or staff, that he or she is gay, d) publicly defending the gay lifestyle as a legitimate lifestyle, and e) going to a gay bar?"

And later in the letter to the Alestle:

It is therefore in the interest in testing the University's good faith that I make the following move. I hereby announce to the University community that I am gay (if there is any doubt left). I belong to several gay organizations, including the National Gay Task Force, the Gay Academic Union, and the Metropolitan Community Church. I have lived with a person of the same sex in a sexual relationship. I have defended and am defending the gay lifestyle as a legitimate alternative lifestyle. And, yes, I even go to gay bars. In fact, I will do the "bump" when I go there.

Nothing significant happened consequently to the publication of this letter. Most significantly, the problems of building into the Affirmative Action Plan a structure for educating the faculty, administration and students to the serious problems of discrimination were given a lower priority. But there it was on paper! Andris had made a difference. Even if discrimination would go on privately, at least anyone with the courage to make an issue of it could point to this Affirmative Action Plan. Only one gay person, however, called to congratulate Andris.

Andris appointed to Task Force committee, but is opposed

At this point there was now important work to be done on setting Affirmative Action goals relating to fair employment practices for SIUE in light of the fact that women and minorities were legally protected categories. There were two permanent subcommittees of the University Senate's Welfare Council dealing with discriminatory/fair treatment. The Equal Educational Opportunities Committee (EEOC) dealt with minority concerns, and the Status of Women (SOWC) committee dealt with sex discrimination. They were both responsible for input into the Affirmative Action Plan. Dickie Spurgeon, a professor of English Literature, had been appointed the Chairperson of the Welfare Council. The Welfare Council approved the merging of the membership of these two important committees to form a new Ad Hoc Committee on Affirmative Action Goals in Promotion, Salary, Rank, and Work Assignment. On March 3, Andris received a memo informing him that he was appointed Chairman of that Committee, and that he was to work closely with the two chairs of the merged committees, Johnetta Haley, of the EEOC and Ann Schwier, of the SOWC.

As it turned out, several people were outraged over Spurgeon's decision to make Andris chair of the committee. They met and voted 11 to 6 to make no change. Andris was not invited to the meeting, even though he was on the EEOC at the time. Prof. Wittig, sitting on SOWC, wrote a letter of protest that these committees had acted out of order and possibly in bad faith. But Andris resigned (April 8) in a two page memo to the Chair of the Welfare Council, stating that he did not wish to block affirmative action, and that his proposed leadership had clearly led to a power struggle that was characterised by "a lack of openness, distrust, disrespect for persons, and a lack of cooperative spirit." He also stated that he intended to continue to remain on the Counsel and that he could serve Affirmative Action just as well that way.

A public debate over appointment of Andris

However, prior to Andris' resignation, the issue had spilled out into the Alestle. In a letter to the editor protesting the Alestle's coverage of a Welfare Council meeting, Prof. Floyd Coleman, a member of the EEOC, stated what he considered legitimate objections to the appointment of Andris as Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee. 1) Spurgeon's action of merging the EEOC and SOWC was a violation of procedure, especially since he did not inform the committee chairs of his intention to do so. 2) Andris is a white maie of a minority not legally protected, and Spurgeon is also a white male. 3) Andris is basically different from women and blacks, since they cannot hide their sex or minority status, and 4) the very fact that Spurgeon and Andris were willing to attempt this questionable arrangement actually disqualifies them from even membership on any committee dealing with discrimination.

Prof. Dickie Spurgeon answered Prof. Coleman's charge that his merging of the two committees was a violation of procedure. (5/9/75) He had invited Prof. Haley, Chair of EEOC and Prof. Schwier, Chair of SOWC to a luncheon for the specific purpose of discussing the combining of the committees and the work to be undertaken by the ad hoc committee, and came away with the understanding that both persons were willing to merge the two committees for the work at hand. Spurgeon pointed out that Coleman did not attend that April 8 meeting. He said that the question of the chairmanship is a decision of the full Welfare Council, and that is usually the Chair's decision (Spurgeon was Chair.) Regarding his appointment of Andris, a section of his defense is worth quoting, precisely because even though Spurgeon felt justified in the appointment, in the end, it was a conflict of the values stated below that caused the dissatisfaction:

"I do not believe that length of service, sex, preference of sexual partner, or least of all, skin color, should be considered as primary considerations for any position of responsibility, even the leadership of committees dealing with affirmative action. I do believe that a sensitivity to discrimination and an understanding of it, and, more importantly, the verbal skills, intelligence, strength of character, and courage necessary to be effective, are primary qualities to be sought in such a person. Certainly, there are individuals, both women and blacks, among the members of the Status of Women and Equal Employment Opportunity committees and in the University, who possess such qualities, and I include Professor Coleman among those I have in mind. But I believe that Professor Andris was best suited to the particular task, and I am sure that had he not been forced to resign he would have [done] an outstanding job."

While I had decided to resign from the stranded chair position so that important affirmative action work could move forward and to end, as much as possible, any protracted public critical debate about the matter, I did take it upon myself to write Prof. Coleman a personal letter disputing several of his claims. I reveal some of the contents of this letter now, 50 years after I wrote it. I challenged his description of me as a "self-proclaimed homosexual" by pointing out how insulting it would be to describe someone as a "self-proclaimed black" because of their having light skin. I challenged several of the statements he made which seemed to me to indicate his unfamiliarity with appropriate civil rights language as applied to homosexuals. I challenged his assumption that I was a relative newcomer to civil rights work, saying not only was my crusade not available to me through normal university channels, but that I had a clear track record on the matter. I argued that I was actually not at all unrepresentative of discriminated groups, but rather that I had particular experience with discrimination against blacks and women through the courses I taught and through the associations I had made on campus. I argued that in fact I was more qualified, since I was also familiar with a broader spectrum of discrimination. And I said much more, and then I stated my intention to cooperate with him and other members of the EEOC going forward. He never replied, and now after a long and distinguished career, he has died. Rest in peace, Floyd Coleman.

Looking at these events in retrospect, it seems clear that if at that luncheon Spurgeon had raised the question of who should chair the merged committees and also had indicated his intention to appoint Andris as chair, all of these objections would have been raised at that time. Had Andris been prepared to aggressively pursue the chair, attempting to answer the alleged objections, and trying to win the confidence of the other potential candidates for the position, his appointment might have been secured. But as a matter of fact, Andris held many other professional and personal goals, and one part of him was glad that he didn't have to assume this broader leadership mantle and that others were willing, even eager to take on the job. And he did have a sincere wish that his efforts to assure some level of employment protection for gay men and lesbians not disrupt the much clearer path to fair treatment for women and legally protected minorities.

The Equal Opportunities Employment Committee meetings of May 5 and 6 helped clear the air to move forward with the work at hand. Andris stated his belief that affirmative action applies to all discrimination and not just to those protected by state and federal laws. Prof. Coleman stated that for him there was a hierarchy of priorities, black, then women, then homosexuals. Prof. Ann Schwier stated that religious and other biases also exist on campus. Coleman reminded everyone that in an academic environment there is a responsibility to respect each other's right to different opinions. On May 8 the new ad hoc committee would meet to elect a chair.

SIUE debate over gay rights reflects national movement

The National Gay Task Force was organized in 1973 and headed by Dr. Bruce Voeller until 1976, when Jean O'Leary became co-director. They published a monthly newsletter, which Andris had been reading regularly. The first page of the May, 1975 NGTF newsletter, It's Time, is reproduced here, and describes the campaign for US House of Representatives Bill HR 5424. The bill was introduced on March 25 by Bella Abzug (D-NY), 22 other Democratic house representatives, and one Republican representative. It was proposed as an amendment to the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts to prohibit discrimination, based on a person's "affectional or sexual preference," in areas of employment, housing, public accomodations and facilities, education, and federally funded programs.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has never passed into law such a statement of non-discrimination for reason of sexual orientation or gender identity. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020),[1] the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. However, the composition of the Supreme Court has shifted radically to the right. As of 2024 24 states have some form of such protection on the books. My work to protect the civil rights of LGBTQ people has continued until the present moment in 2024. It seems unmistakeably clear that such local institutional work as is described in this article is an esential part of justice work.

Included here also is the 1979 letter to the Executive Directors of the National Gay Task Force from Jim Andris summarizing the five years of campus activism he engaged in from 1974 to 1979.