IU stance on HJR 6 reflects history

IU president Michael A. McRobbie declared IU’s support of the statewide Freedom Indiana coalition last month, publicly opposing the proposed House Joint Resolution 6 amendment.

McRobbie’s announcement drew praise from groups like the IU and Bloomington Faculty Councils and IUSA, and inspired a domino effect of support through Bloomington, all the way to the colorful painted windows of Soma coffee shop.

But criticism of the University’s decision soon followed. Some students and faculty members say IU, as a public institution, should not take a stance on social issues.
Charles Trzcinka, professor of finance at the Kelley School of business, said he thinks McRobbie is taking a risk by publicly opposing a ban on same-sex marriage.

The proposed amendment would constitutionally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, banning protections for same-sex couples in Indiana. It will be put to a vote by the Indiana General Assembly in January.

For McRobbie, HJR 6 contradicts IU’s “deeply held values” of inclusion and equality. He said it’s a ban that could negatively affect IU recruitment and retention.

But for Trzcinka, it’s a social issue that does not directly deal with education, and it’s a debate IU should not join.

“People in this state do not agree on the definition of marriage,” Trzcinka said. “At the end of the day, we are a state agency.”

***

Many of the University’s procedures dealing with prominent social issues have remained consistent since the foundation of IU, building on the vision of former president Herman B Wells.

Generally, IU only takes action in certain cases where an issue directly affects students, faculty and staff.

James Capshew, an associate professor in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, is a Herman B Wells biographer.

“When something begins to inhibit the University’s ability to provide an open space for people of any orientation or background, it has a right and an obligation to weigh in on it,” he said.

Wells, who served as IU president from 1938 to 1962, led the University’s efforts to desegregate its student body and admit African American students during during his tenure. He protected Alfred Kinsey’s controversial research on sexual behavior in the 1940s.

He also fended off attacks from the American Legion on allegedly Communist faculty
members.  

“Wells was very careful,” Capshew said. “But he chose to get involved when the University’s interest was being threatened or hampered in certain ways to maintain a neutral zone for all types of people.”

When the direct interest of the University came under fire, Wells was always up front and vocal about protecting the academic freedom of students and faculty, Capshew said. 

“I think Wells would have went on record saying IU is opposed to changing the state constitution,” he said.

***

A week after IU’s announcement, Depauw University and Wabash College joined the campaign. Hanover College and Ball State University followed suit, both joining late last week.

But after IU came out in support of the Freedom Indiana campaign, Purdue University announced it would remain neutral, Julie Griffith, Purdue University’s vice president of public affairs, said. 

“Purdue has traditionally declined to comment on social issues that have been contended in the public arena,” Griffith said. “Any departure from this policy should be undertaken only after careful consultation with the university’s many and diverse stakeholders.”

Riley Parr, junior and chairman of the College Republicans at IU, said he thinks IU should have taken a similar approach. He said the administration should have listened to opinions of students and staff before making a decision.

McRobbie informed the Board of Trustees of the decision before making the public announcement, Mark Land, associate vice president of IU Communications, said. The president worked with the government relations staff to figure out how the decision would play out. It was an issue that different faculty councils on campus had supported for years, Land said, and the president had a good sense he had broad support.

“Virtually everyone on campus has come out in support,” Land said. “There is a broad consensus that this is the right thing to do.”

IU is comprised of more than 110,000 students and 17,000 faculty across all campuses. Many members of this IU community might disagree with the University’s stance, even if they haven’t spoken up, Parr said.

“A university is supposed to be about openness and debate,” Parr said. “When you have the president deciding what the entire University’s stance is, it silences the opposition.”

Trzcinka agreed that many faculty members in opposition might not be speaking about the issue.

“I’ll bet I’m one of the few who express any concerns at all, and all I said was there are risks,” Trzcinka said.

Land said although there has been no organized opposition to IU’s decision on campus, he acknowledges that many students, faculty and alumni might disagree.

“It’s perfectly reasonable to ask that question, whether or not it was our place to do this,” Land said.

IU government relations staff works year-round with legislators, discussing dozens of issues at a given time, Land said. The staff has been working “behind the scenes” on this issue for the last three to four years, Land said.

In addition, the University has offered domestic partner benefits to employees for more than a decade.

“We felt this issue was of significant importance to the University and the state...that the University felt compelled to speak publicly,” Land said.

The proposed amendment would endanger the University’s ability to recruit potential employees by offering them a disincentive to live and work in Indiana, McRobbie said.
Trzcinka said he thinks the economic argument is not relevant to IU’s decision to support Freedom Indiana.

Kinsey’s research on sexual behavior indicated four percent of males and one to three percent of females had been exclusively homosexual at the time ofhis interviews.

“With numbers this low, the economic impact will be unmeasurable,” Trzcinka said. “The only real argument is moral, not economic.”

Whether its a moral, political or social issue, the University argues that it should play a role in the discussion.

“This is one of the biggest issues,” Land said. “We thought it was important to be heard.”

Follow reporter Matt Bloom on Twitter @matthew_bloom.