Battle for Off-Board

Students Declare False Domestic Partnerships

A moral tug-of-war is ensuing between some students and Residential Life and Services. The issue is the domestic partnership loophole. It seems that for many, the itch to get hitched is the trend not only to absolve themselves from living in sin, but also to relieve the financial and gastronomic burden of Campus Dining Services.

For the uninitiated, declaring a domestic partnership requires signing a notorized, legally binding affidavit that entitles a student and his/her same-sex spouse to a refund from Campus Dining Service's meal plans. Its letter reads: "We, the undersigned, declare that we are in a same-sex domestic partnership. We share the necessities of life, live together and have an emotional commitment and would legally marry if there were no state prohibitions on same-sex marriage. [We] are responsible for our common welfare. We understand that this qualifies us from exemption from on-campus housing and dining." This document is, to many students, the key to a long, happy life of off-campus dining.

In the coming months, the housing and dining committee will consult the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Union over changes in the DP and then vote on whether to tighten regulations once again, possibly requiring proof of joint bank accounts, "durable power of attorney," a will or an insurance policy to back up the claim for DPs and to seal the DP loophole.

The rise in DPs suggests that satisfaction with CDS is on the wane. The problems are separate, but closely related. The current overhead costs require off-campus students to remain on the meal plan, providing more service than many students feel is necessary or welcome.

In 1992, the Oberlin lesbian and gay community lobbied for the domestic partnership, arguing that same-sex couples who consider themselves life-partners are entitled to the same right as their opposite-sex counterparts.

This right was largely forgotten until recently, when CDS began to receive a deluge of requests for DPs over the past few semesters. In the fall of 1997, 18 students filed claims for a domestic partnership. Two years later, that number more than doubled, rising to 39 students. This semester, 33 students have received DPs and there are 10 requests pending.

It seems that though the majority of students who apply for a domestic partnership are serious in their claims, there is a smaller, yet equally vocal group of students who use the DP as a way to skirt the College's mandatory meal plan, and who do not fit the standard, legitimate criteria such as age, medical reasons and marriage.

According to Sandy Hougland, assistant director of Housing and Dining, the burgeoning trend of DP abuse is a moral problem, and potentially an economic and legal one as well. Morally, Hougland was quick to point out that the DP was a right fought for by the gay and lesbian community, and that its abuse is disrespectful of those people.

Clayton Koppes, acting president of the College, added, "Domestic partnership provisions were put into place for serious social reasons some years ago. That is, to provide recognition for same-sex couples. It would be a real shame if the noble purpose behind DP is being corrupted for more convenient meal arrangements."

One student, a member of the Housing and Dining committee, said that the use of this loophole for personal gain left her "personally offended." Legally, signing the DP form without fitting the criteria of its design is perjury. Economically, CDS needs every student it can get to cover its costs.

On the day she was interviewed, Hougland received three requests for the DP. Interestingly enough, the same phenomena came up when the rule was first employed in 1992. The administration presiding at the time chose to make the rule as open and accomodating as possible by allowing same and different-sex couples rights to the DP, more far-reaching than limiting it solely to gay and lesbian couples. In the subsequent months, Residential Life and Services received over 100 requests for the DP, bringing a tightening of the policy in 1997. Today, it seems that with the rediscovery of the DP clause, this tightening has lost its effectiveness.

On one hand, though Hougland admits that she thinks that people are lying in order to be granted the DP, she is aware that she cannot rightly deny a couple of their claim. Hougland said that she "can't be the judge" of who are not bona fide same-sex partners, and so she passed the final decision on to a co-worker when she felt that she was losing her objectivity.

On the other hand, Hougland faces the ethical dilemma of allowing some students to abuse a hard-fought privilege. To compound the issue, every request that she grants means less money to cover CDS's overhead.

As Hougland explains it, the cost of food is only one of many expenses that CDS must cover. At 19.7 % of the total budget, it is not as simple as preparing less food to compensate for the loss to revenue. All three dining options cost $1526 per semester. With 33 DPs approved this year, up from 18 in 1997 (when the rule was revised to its current wording), 10 more pending and two to three more requests a week, CDS faces a potential loss of $60,000 or more per semester.

Considering the greater share of flat costs such as utilities, payrolls and interest, every DP is in fact a greater burden upon the students who choose to remain on the meal plan. Nevertheless, for the Housing and Dining committee, the greater concern voiced Wednesday at their meeting was the morally backhanded approach that these students have chosen in negotiating their own dietary and financial needs.

For some students, financial and moral concerns are simply not seen as their problem. The Review interviewed four students who agreed to speak under the condition of anonymity. These students admitted to receiving a DP under false pretenses. One "couple" pointed out that CDS's plan cost $95 a week, an amount far beyond what they believed they actually ate. One student said she had to take out a private bank loan in addition to a Stafford government loan in order to pay for her meal plan. It seems that the financial burden is felt by both the student body and the administration.

Regarding the College's criticism of students taking advantage of the loophole, one student said, "I think CDS needs to modify its own behavior before it begins to criticize others."

Another student, who is vegan, said that CDS had slim options, and that joining one of the co-ops was simply not appealing to her tastes or lifestyle. Her friend replied, "I'm not comfortable with the fact that I have to pay money and, in addition to that, have to work on my free time as a mere compensation to the oppression CDS offers."

The students interviewed felt wholeheartedly that the option to forego the meal plan should be undeniable for all those off-campus, regardless of the qualifying conditions set by Res Life. When asked about possible solutions for the student side of the dilemma, one of the interviewed replied, "It shouldn't be required for all four years here."

These students and others, felt they sought out their best interest in the DP loophole. For many, this perception of interest overrode the moral and legal implications of abusing the DP. For most, it seems that CDS's economic concerns are simply not their problem.

Even some students who have not declared a DP agree that those seeking it are justified in their ends if not in their means. One student who is considering a DP said, "I could eat out for every meal with CDS money. I do feel ashamed for belittling the DP because I know it's not available everywhere, and I don't know if I'd feel right in the end if I got one."

To other students, it seems that the moral implications of the DP never even crossed their minds. One student requested a DP when he was denied getting off board for other reasons. He was denied again. From many students' perspectives, the current meal plans are more costly than the convenience they offer. Others, according to Hougland, were denied the DP because the supposed couple kept different addresses.

The College is trying to make headway on the issue of satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. CDS has hired a consultant from the New Rochelle Company who will make three trips to Oberlin in order to assess opinions, ideas for the future and actual operation of dining facilities. One possible option will be self-management.

Perhaps the only conclusive thing that will come out of this debate is the understanding between the College and students that a workable solution is long overdue.