Campus discussion of the proposed changes to employee benefits seems to be tilting more toward values than facts. If not careful, such an emphasis can be both divisive and deceptive.

Already there are hints by some that opponents of any element of the proposed changes may lack the moral sensitivity to appreciate what lies at the heart of a caring community – one defined (at least so far in this case) as based on the values of inclusion, equity and access. These three values, however, were arbitrarily stipulated, as if they are un-controversially clear, the only ones that matter, the only benchmarks to use.

Many more values, of course, are crucial for a caring, decent community. Rust. Integrity. Dependability. Honoring commitments made to one another. Accepting the consequences of freely made decisions. Loyalty to those within your community who have ‘walked the walk’ with you. To cite just a few.

In any open society, the core values of a decent community are often in conflict and not easily reconciled. All good things cannot always be maximized. Tough value tradeoffs need to be agreed to in considered debate by the whole community if the community’s core is to be strengthened.

Consider just this one example, among many, of the unexamined tradeoffs within the proposal before us. It seeks to eliminate the consequences for the freely made decision by opposite-sex partners not to marry, even though they clearly know the established rules applied to health benefits and taxes and they clearly are able to wed legally if they choose to. Freely made personal choices with full information are valued and protected in a liberal democratic community. But the consequences – all of them – come with the freedom.

At the same time, members of our community who came to the university understanding the eligibility rules for tuition benefits and who have honored their part of the bargain with dedicated service have good reason to expect us to honor our commitment, or at least to give substantial advance notice about any new wrinkles, as we do, for instance, with changes in Social Security regulations because, in part, we all want to live in a community that keeps its word.

By what moral calculus, then, do we justify these two simultaneous rule changes? What signal about us are we sending when we do? Is it the signal of a decent, caring community? A community where we can depend on each other?

To chant a value is not to honor it. The value is in the details, the reasoning, the implementation. And to this point, we in the campus community have been given too few facts and too little explanation to make considered collective moral choices.

In the weeks ahead, let’s honor the stipulated values of access and inclusiveness by demonstrating that the community we all call ours can engage in a robust discussion of the proposed changes with real transparency and without rancor – respecting all the values we each cherish and all the men and women who caringly, thoughtfully and honorably voice them and struggle to reconcile them into a decent, coherent whole.

Robert D. McClure

Chapple Family Professor of Citizenship and Democracy

Published on January 30, 2010 at 12:00 pm