IBJNews

Gay marriage debate draws in higher education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the Indiana higher education community, a world meant to promote free thinking and debate, a seemingly lower-level question of how university officials weigh in on hot-button issues is being pondered.

Indiana University President Michael McRobbie took the unusual step last week of throwing IU's official support behind an effort to keep the state's ban on gay marriage out of the constitution.

On Monday, the leaders of DePauw University in Greencastle and Wabash College in Crawfordsville made the same decision to join Freedom Indiana, a newly formed organization opposed to the proposed same-sex marriage amendment.

"Equality, compassion and respect for individuals have long been the bedrock of Indiana University's educational mission, and the lack of tolerance implicit in HJR 6 (the amendment) runs counters to IU's deeply held values," McRobbie said in a statement announcing the university's stance.

Business leaders, lawmakers, veteran activists and many other people and organizations have been taking sides in the upcoming gay marriage battle.

Supporters of amending the ban into the constitution say it is needed to prevent the courts from effectively legalizing gay marriage in Indiana, but opponents say the step would enshrine inequality in the state.

Thirty states have constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex marriage and five others, including Indiana, ban it by law.

The involvement of Indiana's higher education community is somewhat unusual in a political issue. Purdue University President Mitch Daniels decided the state's other flagship university would not be taking sides in the debate.

"Over the years, Purdue has traditionally declined to comment on social issues that have been contended in the public arena," Purdue Vice President for Public Affairs Julie Griffith told the Lafayette Journal & Courier. "Any departure from this policy should be undertaken only after careful consultation with the university's many and diverse stakeholders."

Daniels drew attention to the role of leaders and politics last year when, as part of his high-profile selection as president, he announced that he would refrain from commenting on certain political issues. That vow, offered in the middle of the 2012 election cycle as he was rounding out his term as governor, has led to questions of how it is applied.

Speaking last week at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Daniels offered his thoughts on everything from the Keystone XL pipeline to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is up for re-election Tuesday. But he also said his "vow of political celibacy" would keep him from weighing in on certain issues, like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cucinelli's race for governor.

"Partisan means just that — Republican versus Democrat. The president has not participated in campaign politics of any kind. He sat out the 2012 election completely and has turned down every invitation from any partisan committee or candidate," Purdue spokeswoman Shelley Triol told The Associated Press in an email responding to questions of how Daniels applies his vow.

Daniels also pointed out that Purdue already has an open hiring and benefits policy.

Peter Wood, president of the conservative National Association of Scholars, has consistently defended Daniels in higher education forums and argues his voice is needed most in traditionally left-leaning academia. Wood wrote last month that Daniels was wrong to apologize for a paid appearance at a conservative Minnesota think tank and should not shy from public debate, despite Daniels' political vow.

He noted that other university presidents, like Harvard's Drew Faust and Spelman's Beverly Tatum, have not shied from appearances at liberal think tanks like the Center for American Progress.

"Such ideological lockstep isn't good for higher education," he wrote last month on The Chronicle of Higher Education website. "It conveys to students that the range of views that can be openly discussed on campuses is limited. It drives faculty members underground. And it tells the public pretty vividly that colleges and universities are not the havens for open-minded inquiry that they pretend to be."

Open commentary is hardly the same as throwing a university's name behind a political stance, but McRobbie's decision last week elevated the question of involvement for at least the duration of the gay marriage battle.

DePauw and Wabash, both liberal arts colleges, issued a joint press release about their involvement in Freedom Indiana.

“Our students come from around the country and around the world, and our fundamental goal is to educate them to think critically, exercise responsible leadership, communicate effectively, and tackle complex problems," they said in a prepared statement. "This depends on attracting talented faculty and staff, a task that is made more difficult by the passage of this amendment."

DePauw, founded in 1837, has about 2,300 undergraduates. Wabash, an all-male college founded in 1832, has about 900 undergraduates.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Curious...
    I find it interesting that whenever IBJ reports on the gay marriage amendment or anything having to do with gay rights, they either use AP or wire reports or IBJ Staff reports; not an individual reporter at IBJ uses his/her byline? Why??
  • Higher education shows better judgement
    Yes----there are those who have higher education that are anti-gay and against giving all equal rights. But, their Bible thumping fantasies are out of the real world. They are bigoted and hateful. I have no respect for such people. Their holier than thou attitudes are shameful shams.
  • Same-sex marriage in the United States
    Map of State Policy on Marriage http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-SAME_SEX_MAP_0905.html A new Utah polygamous family on reality TV http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26874920

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Why not take some time to do some research before traveling to that Indiana town or city, and find the ones that are no smoking either inside, or have a patio? People like yourself are just being selfish, and unnecessarily trying to take away all indoor venues that smokers can enjoy themselves at. Last time I checked, it is still a free country, and businesses do respond to market pressure and will ban smoking, if there's enough demand by customers for it(i.e. Linebacker Lounge in South Bend, and Rack and Helen's in New Haven, IN, outside of Fort Wayne). Indiana law already unnecessarily forced restaurants with a bar area to be no smoking, so why not support those restaurants that were forced to ban smoking against their will? Also, I'm always surprised at the number of bars that chose to ban smoking on their own, in non-ban parts of Indiana I'll sometimes travel into. Whiting, IN(just southeast of Chicago) has at least a few bars that went no smoking on their own accord, and despite no selfish government ban forcing those bars to make that move against their will! I'd much rather have a balance of both smoking and non-smoking bars, rather than a complete bar smoking ban that'll only force more bars to close their doors. And besides IMO, there are much worser things to worry about, than cigarette smoke inside a bar. If you feel a bar is too smoky, then simply walk out and take your business to a different bar!

  2. As other states are realizing the harm in jailing offenders of marijuana...Indiana steps backwards into the script of Reefer Madness. Well...you guys voted for your Gov...up to you to vote him out. Signed, Citizen of Florida...the next state to have medical marijuana.

  3. It's empowering for this niche community to know that they have an advocate on their side in case things go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrst9VXVKfE

  4. Apparently the settlement over Angie's List "bundling" charges hasn't stopped the practice! My membership is up for renewal, and I'm on my third email trying to get a "basic" membership rather than the "bundled" version they're trying to charge me for. Frustrating!!

  5. Well....as a vendor to both of these builders I guess I have the right to comment. Davis closed his doors with integrity.He paid me every penny he owed me. Estridge,STILL owes me thousands and thousands of dollars. The last few years of my life have been spent working 2 jobs, paying off the suppliers I used to work on Estridge jobs and just struggling to survive. Shame on you Paul...and shame on you IBJ! Maybe you should have contacted the hundreds of vendors that Paul stiffed. I'm sure your "rises from the ashes" spin on reporting would have contained true stories of real people who have struggled to find work and pay of their debts (something that Paul didn't even attempt to do).

ADVERTISEMENT