UIC has always expressed, in a variety of ways, the goal of treating every student equally and giving everyone the same opportunities regardless of their race, class, or sexual orientation. They are now achieving this goal by offering CampusCare health insurance to students involved in same-sex domestic partnerships.
The program is open to all students (undergraduate and graduate), as well as faculty and staff members. It costs approximately $1000 per semester. Roger Carlson, director of Managed Care said same-sex domestic partners "are charged the same dependent rate as everyone else." The deadline to register for the program is September 12 for the Fall 2010 semester.
Carlson explained that "the University asked us to consider adding this to our program," and "it was added to CampusCare at the start of the 2008-2009 academic year."
If a same-sex couple decides they want to participate in the program, they are given a Domestic Partner Packet. The packet explains that "unrelated, same-sex individuals who reside in the same household and have a financial and emotional interdependence consistent with that of a married couple for a period of not less than one year and continue to maintain such arrangement are eligible for medical, dental and vision benefits through the State Employees Group Insurance Program."
In an interview with Liz Thompson, Interim Director of the Gender and Sexuality Center, she said, "Where the inequities lie is that if you're the student and you're enrolling your same-sex partner, you come here [Gender and Sexuality Center], and you have to basically prove your solid relationship, which opposite-sex married couples don't have to do."
Thompson continued, "You also then have to provide this documentation, and one document is if you're registered with Cook County domestic partnership registry." If the couple is not registered for that, they then have to show at least two other forms of documentation proving their relationship. These could be things such as a joint credit card or bank account, or a joint mortgage or lease.
Another inequity with the program is a tax consequence. The Domestic Partner Packet boldly states, "Members should consult with a tax advisor regarding tax consequences." The student enrolled must claim their partner as a tax dependent and later pay taxes on that.
"For right now, it's definitely a great plan and a good option. Especially if the partner and the student really want to have health insurance coverage," Thompson said.
However, a large issue with the program is the lack of student awareness. Many students, when asked about the program had no idea it existed. Fifth year math major, Matt Rohn said, "I had no idea [this was offered], but I don't see why they shouldn't offer it." Another student, Cassidy Park, third year sociology major said, "I didn't know the program was offered, but it's nice to know that students have options."
Only one couple is enrolled in the program for the 2010 academic year, which is believed to be caused by inadequate advertisement. When the program began there were about three or four couples enrolled.
Thompson said, "The few people that have taken advantage of this said they definitely like that it's an option, and after the first year when it started, the 3 or 4 people that did enroll, at the end of that year I called and emailed them and they said they hadn't had any trouble, everything was fine. The biggest feedback was that they wished there was more advertisement for it."
There has been no backlash from conservative students or faculty. "Once it is university policy, I do feel it would be really hard to challenge that… now that it's implemented and here, then I think it would probably take a lot to get it repealed," Thompson said.
Chris Larsen, a fourth year computer engineering major said, "A public school has no place in saying what life choices a student should or shouldn't make when it comes to choosing a partner. Equal treatment should be given regardless of gender preference." With this program, UIC, a university that prides itself in its diversity, takes a step forward in creating student equality.
Students can get more information regarding the program on the CampusCare web page or by contacting the Gender and Sexuality Center.



is a member of the 



1 comments
1. Who specifically from "the University" made this request?
2. Was this request discussed and approved at a Board of Trustees meeting?
3. Who "considered" it? Was there a meeting were pertinent issues were discussed?
3. Who inside Campus Care leadership made the final decision to go ahead with this plan?B. What about extending coverage to opposite-sex domestic/cohabiting partners? Why are they being discriminated against? What about same sex roommates (i.e. non domestic partners) who "reside in the same household and have a financial and emotional interdependence consistent with that of a married couple for a period of not less than one year"?C. "emotional interdependence"? What is that? "consistent with that of a married couple"? What is that? How are these things even measurable or generalizable?D. --In an interview with Liz Thompson, Interim Director of the Gender and Sexuality Center, she said, “Where the inequities lie is that if you’re the student and you’re enrolling your same-sex partner, you come here [Gender and Sexuality Center], and you have to basically prove your solid relationship, which opposite-sex married couples don’t have to do.”--
First off all, I make the following tangential note: "prov[ing] your solid relationship" is ridiculous and absurd in so many ways and at so many levels, but, not for the reason stated -- inequity.
Consider, "while opposite-sex married couples don't have to [prove solid relationship]"! They're married! They have a legal document that says so.E. --Thompson continued, “You also then have to provide this documentation, and one document is if you’re registered with Cook County domestic partnership registry.” If the couple is not registered for that, they then have to show at least two other forms of documentation proving their relationship. These could be things such as a joint credit card or bank account, or a joint mortgage or lease.--
Why is Thompson incredulous? Is she suggesting implicitly that you should just take one's word for it? The real incredulity is that this policy exists in the first place -- albeit, based on the drastically more incredulous state of affairs where the policy of the Illinois government and, by consequence, the University is contrary to the laws of the State of Illinois and the American Constitution. (But, that's another matter).F. --“Once it is university policy, I do feel it would be really hard to challenge that… now that it’s implemented and here, then I think it would probably take a lot to get it repealed,” Thompson said.--
"really hard to challenge", "take a lot to get it repealed". It seems like you are relying on the inherent difficulties of due process to protect this policy change. If this is good policy, it should rest secure on the strength of its own merits. G. --Chris Larsen, a fourth year computer engineering major said, “A public school has no place in saying what life choices a student should or shouldn’t make when it comes to choosing a partner. Equal treatment should be given regardless of gender preference.”--
I couldn't agree with Chris more! I completely agree with both his statements. The fact that Chris makes these statements in support of this discriminatory policy against all sound logic and principles of rationality is beyond the realm of incredulity and well within the purview of comedians and social commentators.H. Personal position statement:
I hate and abhor discrimination of any kind -- including discrimination based on sexual orientation. I also hate and abhor preferential treatment of any kind -- including discrimination based on sexual orientation. As a fundamental principle, I cherish, uphold and defend the ideals of equality and democracy as typically embodied in the American Constitution, Federal laws and, with regard to my current situation, the laws of the State of Illinois. And finally, I am not a US citizen; I am a proud citizen of the great land of India.