2' .
.5... .I)..\l..
5:}. {if

5:81.)

.3:

much. a:

‘r

 

.q n). 7—
Egan

 

..

.1

2 ..
{a 4V5..H..
a. .

 

1:)t\3.\°
5.2.29.1;
.3 a...
:2. 3.32.9
. \Zf. [butt

. iilrjlalr
iiyzssllfsil‘
9.9;}: (11.3.5151: “till-

I .191:
1041.10 4})

£13.;

7
r S

:JZKLELQKA.

5537. 3.111,

Inning.
xflshkeufs
:2) . s. ., z.

THESIS

Will/llllllllll/Illlllll

VERSITY LIBRARIES

HHI/Lllzllll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

ARGUING FOR CHANGE: ARGUMENTS BY ACTIVISTS, NON-ACTIVISTS
AND IN THE MEDIA REGARDING. DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS

presented by

Michelle Lynn Campo

has been accepted towards fulfillment
ofthe requirements for

__Pth—- degree in Communication

@777%&

Major professor

Date I) Déwmécr if?

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inslirution 042771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 cJCIFIC/DateDue.p65-p.14

 

ARGUING FOR CHANGE: ARGUMENTS BY ACTIVISTS, NON-ACTIVISTS
AND IN THE MEDIA REGARDING DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS

By

Michelle Lynn Campo

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

1999

ABSTRACT

ARGUING FOR CHANGE: ARGUMENTS BY ACTIVISTS, NON-ACTIVISTS
AND IN THE MEDIA REGARDING DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS

By

Michelle Lynn Campo

In September of 1997, domestic partner activists at Michigan State University
(MSU) claimed victory when the Board of Trustees approved health and other
benefits for same sex partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual employees. This
multi-method study examines arguments surrounding this issue, issues
management strategies used by activists, and media and public framing of issue
arguments. Methods included interviews with key individuals who lobbied for
domestic partner benefits, content analysis of newspaper coverage and a poll of
the campus community. In addition, 52 interviews with administrators through
undergraduate students were conducted, asking them to support their opinions
and opposing opinions about partner benefits. Level of activism,
argumentativeness, and verbal aggression were also assessed. It was expected
that activists would be better than non-activists at making arguments and
counterarguments. This study also examined whether an activist’s ability to make
arguments is a transferable skill by asking participants to make arguments about
a second issue, campus parking. Analysis of the interviews with activists
revealed four key shifts in the strategies used to achieve passage of benefits.

Strategies leading to their eventual success involved working directly with

decision makers and minimizing public and media involvement. Results of the
interview analysis suggest an indirect effect of activism on the ability to create
complex arguments and counterarguments. Two mediators were found. Verbal
aggression was found to be negatively related to activism and to the ability to
create complex arguments. Argumentativeness was found to be positively related
to both activism and argument construction. The idea that the ability to argue is a
transferable skill was also supported. Comparing arguments from a content
analysis of newspaper coverage with the public opinion poll revealed differences
in argument patterns. Little evidence for media effects on public opinion were
found. Although these data do not support an agenda-setting effect of the media
setting the public agenda, the historical data does suggest that activists had
some influence on both the media agenda and the policy agenda. The poll data
did not support pluralistic ignorance, and instead suggest that different groups

within MSU have a clear idea of other groups’ attitudes.

 

Copyright by
Michelle Lynn Campo
1999

For Everyone Who Has Ever Taught Me to Argue

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My deepest thanks go to everyone that participated in this study.
Particular thanks go out to John Huebler and to GLFSA for their willingness to
help in this effort. I also owe a deep debt to my undergraduate research
assistants who spent countless hours coding and assisting with gathering
relevant documents: Molly Murphy, Sheri Fent, Hope King, David Midgal, and
Jaime Zarafonetis.

Without a supportive committee and dissertation director this work would
not have been possible. My appreciation goes out to Franklin J. Boster, Charles
T. Salmon, James W. Dearing, and Kim Witte for their support in this project and
for other research opportunities and support they provided throughout my
graduate career. I am also deeply indebted to Charles Salmon and to the
graduate school at Michigan State University for providing me a dissertation
fellowship that supported many of the direct expenses incurred in this project. My
thanks to Stan Kaplowitz, my friend and collaborator, for providing me with
additional funding and support in the last years of my program. Thanks also go to
the staff at the UCRIHS office, particularly Amy Hirshman for assisting with all
those human subjects’ applications, and to Marge Barkman, for her assistance
with the remaining paperwork.

Dissertations and graduate school tend to be a group effort. Thanks to
Kenzie Cameron for providing me with plenty of coffee dates and study sessions
at the Cappuccino Cafe in Okemos and for those final hours in her dissertation

den at the University of Georgia. Also thanks to Betty “Boop” LaFrance for

vi

sharing an office and her friendship. Thanks to Wen-Ying Liu, Ren-He Huang,
Takuya Minami, Rie Ohashi, and Reiko Nebashi for excuses to have many
memorable dinner parties together. My deepest appreciation goes to Katherine
Bradshaw for providing a public opinion soulmate and to Teresa Mastin and Alice
Chan for their support and lessons in sanity.

I am deeply indebted to my past academic mentors: Steven Warland,
Clyde W. Franklin, II, and Tanni Hall. Also in this category are Ron Ostman and
Cliff Scherer who not only mentored me through my undergraduate years at
Cornell and deepened my academic interests, but who also provided me with my
first academic job and a real reason to finish this dissertation.

Many thanks to my father for teaching me the value of higher education
and hard work, and to my mother for teaching me the value of having fun. My

deepest appreciation goes to Esther Baker for helping me to have both.

vii

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xi

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
Activism ........................................................................................................ 3
Argumentation .............................................................................................. 4
Media, Framing, and Public Opinion ............................................................ 6
Organizational Communication .................................................................... 8
The Issues .................................................................................................... 1O
Dissertation Organization ............................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 2

METHODS .............................................................................................................. 14
History and Issues Management .................................................................. 14
Public Opinion Poll ....................................................................................... 16
Content Analysis of Newspaper Coverage ................................................... 17
Argumentation Interviews ............................................................................. 17

CHAPTER 3

HISTORY AND ISSUES MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 22
The University-Wide Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues ...................... 26
The Kate Murphy Case ................................................................................ 30
The November 1995 Board of Trustees Meeting ......................................... 33
The September 1997 Board of Trustees Meeting ........................................ 37

CHAPTER 4

PUBLIC OPINION AND MEDIA ANALYSIS ........................................................... 53
Poll Results .................................................................................................. 53
Knowledge Questions .................................................................................. 54
Opinions ....................................................................................................... 55
Content Analysis of Newspaper Results ...................................................... 59
Arguments from the Media and Polling Data ................................................ 61
Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................ 63

CHAPTER 5

INTERVIEW RESULTS .......................................................................................... 65
Response Rate Information .......................................................................... 65
Demographic Information ............................................................................. 65
Analysis Information ..................................................................................... 66

viii

 

Activism Results ........................................................................................... 67

Verbal Aggression, Argumentativeness, and Cognitive Complexity ............. 70
Causal Theory, Justification, and Contradictory Positions ........................... 72
Instrumental Reasoning ............................................................................... 75
Epistomological Reasoning .......................................................................... 76
Perceptions of Media Coverage ................................................................... 76
Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................ 78

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS ............................................................................ 81
Limitations .................................................................................................... 81
Issues Management, Public Opinion, and Framing Findings ....................... 83
Argumentation Findings ............................................................................... 85
Arguments versus Opportunities .................................................................. 87
Implications for Activists ............................................................................... 89

APPENDIX A

INSTRUMENTS ...................................................................................................... 94
Argumentation Interview Protocol ................................................................ 94
Kerpelman’s Activity Scale ........................................................................... 104
Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression Scales ...................................... 107
History Interview Protocol ............................................................................ 109
MSU Community Telephone Poll ................................................................. 110

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE CODING FOR ARGUMENTATION INTERVIEW .................................... 119

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 121

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Poll Response Rates by University Affiliation ............................................ 53
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Opinions and Perceptions of Others’

Opinions by Affiliation ............................................................................... 57
Table 3: Arguments in Opposition to Partner Benefits ............................................ 62
Table 4: Arguments in Favor of Partner Benefits .................................................... 62
Table 5: Spearman Rank Order Correlations .......................................................... 63
Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for Kerpelman’s

Activity Scale Items ................................................................................... 69
Table 7: Correlations Between Activism Measures ................................................. 70
Table 8: Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for Verbal

Aggression Items ...................................................................................... 71
Table 9: Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for

Argumentativeness Items .......................................................................... 72
Table 10: Ability to Be Proven Wrong or Prove Someone Else Wrong ................... 73
Table 11: Comparisons of Responses Related to Epistemological Reasoning ....... 77

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Dissertation Overview .............................................................................. 13
Figure 2: Overall Strategy of Influence Leading to November 1995 Vote ............... 42
Figure 3: Overall Strategy of Influence Leading to September 1997 Vote .............. 42
Figure 4: Actual and Perceived Opinions by Affiliation ............................................ 58
Figure 5: Number of News Articles, Stories and Features By Year ........................ 60
Figure 6: Path Model for Ability to Argue about Domestic Partner Benefits ............ 74
Figure 7: Path Model for Ability to Argue about Parking on Campus ..................... 75

xi

 

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

ADJB ............................................................... Anti-Discrimination Judiciary Board
ALGBTS ............. Alliance of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Students
COGS ...................................................................... Council of Graduate Students
GLFSA .......................................... Gay and Lesbian Faculty and Staff Association
LAHRPAC ........................ Lansing Area Human Rights Political Action Committee
MSU ................................................................................ Michigan State University
UFAC ............................................................ University Faculty Affairs Committee
xii

 

 

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Argumentation and activism go hand in hand because activists need well
constructed arguments to persuade others, particularly policy makers, to see
their conclusions and recommendations as the correct course of action for a
particular social issue. Therefore, it may be plausible to think that activists need
to become skilled at constructing arguments, counterarguments, and shaping the
arguments of others. Arguments change over the life of a social issue as activist
groups strategically frame their arguments, reframe old ones, and counter others.
The relationship between argumentation and activism can then be thought of in
at least three different ways:

(1) Activist groups must create, maintain, and counter the arguments of
others. This effort may be thought of as a type of public relations, or
issues management. Activist organizations need to decide how best to
manage an issue so that outcomes, such as policy changes, will be as
they desire. Activist groups need to consider their audiences, the
opinion climate, where their political opportunities lie, and which

arguments to put forward, among other factors.

(2) In the course of managing an issue, there are competing forces
seeking to shape public opinion and media content. How the themes or

frames, or even specific arguments presented in the media, compare

to those made by the public and by activist organizations must be

examined so activists can be more successful in achieving their goals.

(3) Individually, activists might be expected to construct more complex
arguments than non-activists. One might expect that the ability to
argue is intertwined with level of activism because activists are
expected to participate in public and private debates over social
issues. In addition, activists may be different than others in terms of
certain personality characteristics that may also impact their ability to

argue.

Using a multi-method research design, this project draws from a public
opinion poll, content analysis of local newspaper coverage, historical analysis,
and interviews with activists and non-activists to investigate these assumptions.
To test these issues, two campus controversies were studied. The first is the
central issue of the study and was used to examine questions in all three areas.
The second issue was employed in order to ascertain if the ability to argue is
issue specific. Specifically, if activists are better at arguing, then these skills are
expected to be manifested consistently across issues.

The central issue involves Michigan State University’s debate over, and
eventual decision to grant, domestic partner benefits to gay, lesbian, and
bisexual employees. The second issue is familiar to nearly everyone on college

campuses. It centers on campus parking problems. In the upcoming sections l

 

 

 

shall first review and define critical terms surrounding these areas. Many of these
concepts overlap among the three areas of study. Next, I shall explain briefly the
two campus issues, and the chapters that follow.

Activism

Many definitions of activism can be found in the literature. Most revolve
around someone who fights for change or fights to maintain the status quo.
However, one important distinction that is not always made is that between
activism and ideology (Kerpelman, 1969; 1972). Ideology is a series of beliefs
about something (Kerpelman, 1969; 1972).

If all ideologues were activists, there would be many more activists in the
world. Grunig and Grunig (1997) note that very few participate as members of
activist publics. Neuman (1986) suggests that only 5% of adults in the United
States can be considered activists, characterizing them by high levels of
knowledge and involvement. Frequently, ideology is what initially draws many
activists together. Moreover, not all activists are ideologues. What separates
activists from non-activists is participation in organized efforts, often in the form
of a political or social organization (Kerpelman, 1969; 1972). Alinsky (1971) uses
this assumption in his book, Rules for Radicals, by providing activists with lists of
ideas for activities and actions in which to engage in order to obtain the desired
response from people in power.

Activists also tend to be different from non-activists in other ways. Activists
do not tend to simply participate. Rather, they are also much more likely to lead

groups, voice their opinions publicly, and to have extensive arguments with

 

others (Kerpelman, 1969; 1972). Although it has been found that activists tend to
argue more often, it does not follow that they are any more skilled at it. A central
focus of this study is to test such notions, and to find out, for example, if activists
are higher in the personality characteristic of argumentativeness (lnfante &
Rancer, 1982). In addition, being argumentative is not the same thing as being
verbally aggressive, which is defined as the desire to dominate others in
conversations (lnfante & Wigley, 1986). Often, activists are assumed to be
verbally aggressive as well as argumentative. One hypothesis of this study is that
although activists will be higher in argumentativeness than non-activists, there
will be no difference in their level of verbal aggression.

Studies of activists are common. They often center on case studies of
particular social movements. The research questions often address issues of
organization, mobilization, life cycles, and policy changes (e.g., Gamson, 1990;
Gitlin, 1980; McAdam, 1988; Morris, 1984 ). Studies of activists from the
perspective of actual dialogue and speeches are also common in the rhetorical
field. In part, this study bridges social science and rhetorical approaches (Billig,
1996).

Argumentation

The term argument can have at least two different meanings. An argument
can be either a conclusion with a supporting reason(s) (Mills, 1968; O’Keefe,
1982), or it can take the form of a dialogical argument as a particular form of
interaction (O’Keefe, 1982). From the observations of classical rhetoricians to

present day communication research, the study of how to construct arguments

 

has been a central focus. Rhetoricians and persuasion researchers have been
interested in the effects that arguments can have on influencing someone with a
particular proposal or proposition (Fisher & Sayles, 1966). How people are
affected by arguments has been studied by both the social sciences and the
humanities. Kuhn (1991) examined arguments bridging both perspectives by
performing a study examining people’s abilities to argue, counterargue, generate
alternative theories, and reason logically. Kuhn asked her 160 subjects, who
ranged from teenagers to senior citizens, to argue about common social
problems, including crime, children’s failure in school, and unemployment. She
found, among other things, that the ability to argue, counterargue, and provide
epistomological understanding varied significantly with age. The most compelling
explanation for this outcome is that arguing is something that takes practice, and
older people have had more practice. Kuhn (1992; 1996) argues that both pre-
adolescents and adults exhibit better reasoning skills with repeated engagement
or exercise. Activists at any age often have a great deal of practice arguing.
Therefore, it can be suggested that if the key variable is practice, then, in
general, activists will be better than non-activists at generating arguments
supporting their own position and at generating arguments supporting an
alternative position. This should be true not only for the issues that activists are
directly involved with, but for those with which they are simply familiar. In
addition, if this hypothesis holds, it can also be suggested that those fighting to
change the status quo, or “the movement”, will be better at arguing than those

fighting to maintain it, or “the counter movement” (McCarthy & Zald, 1977). One

 

process that could produce this result is that because those fighting to change
the status quo are often on the defensive, they will also have a better
understanding of the arguments of those opposed to them than the reverse
(Robinson & Keltner, 1996). In part, the point of this study is to extend Kuhn and
examine these ideas empirically. The present study adapts Kuhn’s Interview
protocol testing various types of reasoning, including the ability to generate
causal theory and justification, contradictory positions, instrumental reasoning,
and epistomological reasoning. Pertinent results comparing and contrasting two
social issues are presented in Chapter 5.
Media, Framing. and Public Opinion

Research surrounding media and argumentation often falls under a few
different rubrics: agenda-building (e.g. Cobb and Elder, 1983), agenda-setting
(e.g. Dearing & Rogers, 1996; McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Rogers & Dearing,
1988; Rogers, Dearing & Bregman, 1993), issues management and framing (e.g.
Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, lyengar, 1991). Agenda-building research often
examines the way in which different publics compete to place their issue on the
policy agenda. An agenda is defined as “a list of issues and events that are
viewed at a point in time and ranked in a hierarchy of importance” (Rogers &
Dearing, 1988, p. 565). Agenda-setting research examines the way in which
different agendas, sometimes the media’s, are set by others. Issues
management and framing are very closely related to the study of argumentation
in that they tend to examine specific arguments or major patterns of arguments

that get presented to the public or to policy makers in order to obtain a specific

desired outcome. In the creation of an issue, it is critical not to ignore that for any
given issue there are competing arguments. For social movements, there are
typically countermovements, media, and other publics whose agendas and
arguments do not match theirs. Often it is critical for a movement to attempt to
gain a voice through the media (Kielbowicz & Scherer, 1986). The media in turn
are often dependent on activists for comments about a conflict (Gamson &
Wolfsfeld, 1993).

Studies of social movements and media are becoming more common

(e.g.. Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Gamson & Stuart, 1992; Wolfsfeld, 1984a;

 

1984b; 1987). Framing research concerns itself with finding major patterns of
arguments in everyday life (Goffman, 1986) and in the media (e.g. Campo &
Salmon, 1997; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; lyengar, 1991). The present study
explores how specific arguments made by activists and non-activists compare
with specific arguments presented in the media. In addition, It is suggested that
the level of knowledge about domestic partner benefits will be relatively low
among the campus community.

In addition, the opinions of the “public” and their perceptions of the issue
may also match the argument made by activists, by the media, or be quite
different from either or both. Other questions can also be asked, such as whether
the public perceives people who are similar to them as holding similar opinions.
This idea is referred to as false consensus (Ross, Greene & House, 1977).
Further, it has been shown that often individuals are not accurate in judging the

majority’s opinion These questions are often explored by public opinion

researchers interested in pluralistic ignorance (e.g. Allport, 1924: Fields &
Schuman, 1976). How the campus community perceives the majority opinion on
domestic partner benefits and how they believe other groups perceive the issue
of domestic partner benefits will be addressed Chapter 4.

Recent studies have examined factors that influence political mobilization
(Gould, 1993; Weinberg & Gould, 1993), success of community activists in the
political process (Wolfsfeld, 1984a; 1987), and efforts to affect policy makers and
media representatives (Anderson, 1991 ; Kriesberg, 1988). Activists at Michigan
State University were successful in gaining domestic partner benefits for
university employees. Who those activists chose to influence, which tactics they
used and how they succeeded are areas that are addressed in Chapters 3 and 4.
Organizational Communication

Activism can also be thought of in the context of organizational
communication. Interorganizational literature has given increased attention to
new organizational forms, including coalitions and consortia, that are essential for
activists. Organizational forms include characteristics of an organization that
identify it as distinct from other organizations and similar to others in its class
(Romanelli, 1991). Role distinctions within communities are not always easy
given limited resources and skills. Personnel overlap and personal relationships
exist which cloud organizational boundaries (Lincoln, 1982). In the case of
community activism, it is not always clear how to separate clearly the boundaries
between social movement organizations, such as citizen action groups, and other

community organizations including media, local businesses, and politicians.

 

Local politicians, for example, may also be business owners, or they may
regularly write columns for their small town paper. Such role sets make them
boundary spanners.

Community activism succeeds or fails depending on its ability to influence
decision makers. Attempts to influence powerful others are often built on alliance
formation. In smaller communities, influence may be based as much, if not more,
on personal rather than professional ties. Community structures are inherently
interorganizational linkages (Laumann, Galaskiewicz, & Marsden, 1978). Social
movement organizations or citizens action groups that form around a specific
issue are one such link in an interorganizational community chain. Others Include
media, local businesses, government, other groups within a broader organization
such as a university, and other community based organizations which also may
have an interest in promoting solutions to human rights problems. These groups
are likely to have varying degrees of similarity between motivations behind
human rights interests, opinions about how to resolve the situation successfully,
and criteria for what is a successful outcome.

According to the organizational communication literature, linkages can
form for many reasons including strategic interdependence, a needed resource
(Gulati, 1995; Oliver, 1990), personal contacts (Galaskiewicz & Burt, 1991),
preexisting networks (Morris, 1984; Oliver, 1990; Wolfsfeld, 1984a; 1987), similar
ideology or goals (Martin, 1990), symmetry, reciprocity, and to gain legitimacy
(Oliver, 1990). Whatever the reason, resource mobilization theorists (e.g.

McCarthy & Zald, 1977) believe that interorganizational links are essential to the

success of a social movement. Morris (1984), for example, found that preexisting
networks led to the success of many events in the civil rights movement.

Understanding how solutions and policy decisions are reached is an
important area of study for political scientists, sociologists, and organizational
and communication scholars. In addition, practical lessons can be provided for
politicians, media personnel, local businesses, citizens action groups, and other
stakeholders in community disputes. Political decision making, community
activism and social movements, and interorganizational linkages have been rich
areas of study, but the question of how local activists influence the decision
making process through interorganizational linkages and the communication
strategies that they employ to reach those goals is ripe for study. This study
proposes to examine the interactions between stakeholders based on the
strategies and arguments an activist organization uses over time to promote
social change. This issue is examined thoroughly in the discussion of the history
and issues management surrounding domestic partner benefits at Michigan State
University (MSU), which is addressed in Chapter 3.

Thelssues

Two issues have been selected for use in this study. The central issue
surrounds Michigan State University’s recent decision to extend domestic partner
benefits to Its gay and lesbian employees. The second issue pertains to parking
problems on Michigan State University’s campus. Both issues were chosen

because they have been well publicized and should be familiar to those being

10

interviewed. The second issue is one experienced equally by staff, faculty, and
students on a nearly daily basis at MSU. This second issue is meant to test
whether or not the ability to argue is issue specific.

Domestic partner benefits at MSU. Depending on who you ask, domestic
partner benefits have been an issue at this University since either the late 1970’s,
when sexual orientation was added to the University’s anti-discrimination clause,
or the 1990’s, when this issue was reviewed by the MSU Board of Trustees. This
issue received considerable attention in the 1990’s when a University-wide task
force was appointed by MSU to study gay and lesbian issues on campus. After
nearly a year of study, several subcommittees of the task force recommended
that the University extend health and other benefits to domestic partners (Mo—vigg
Forward: Lesbians and Gav Men at Michigan State University, 1992). The issue
received increased attention in November of 1995, when the MSU Board of
Trustees opted to table the issue of granting domestic partner benefits for two
years in order to study it in more detail. The issue was tabled, in part, because of
the level of controversy surrounding the issue. For several years, the Gay and
Lesbian Faculty and Staff Association (GLFSA) was actively involved in lobbying
to get these benefits extended, while members of local fundamentalist Christian
groups actively lobbied against these benefits. In September 1997, the MSU
Board of Trustees voted to extend domestic partner benefits to its gay and
lesbian employees. The benefits, however, were not extended to heterosexual
domestic partners or to any undergraduate or graduate students without

assistantships.

11

 

 

Parking on campus. Whether or not one drives on the MSU campus, it is
not possible to ignore the vulturous way in which people circle the campus and
its parking lots, often to the point of not only being a hazard to other drivers, but
to pedestrians and bicyclists as well. Parking problems are a nearly constant
source of conversation on campus and frequently are addressed in newspaper
articles. Depending on status, people attribute the cause of the parking problems
to different sources. It is not uncommon, for example, to hear undergraduates
complain that there is not enough commuter parking, while staff and faculty often
are heard arguing that students are not even supposed to be driving on campus
and therefore cause the parking problem. Graduate assistants often sit in the
middle of the debate, but with their own unique spin: that it is unfair that they
cannot park on the north side of campus.

Dissertation Organization

The chapters that follow address these questions. Chapter 2 reviews the
overall methodology for this study. Chapter 3 examines the history and issues
management strategies used by GLFSA to get these benefits passed. Chapter 4
examines public perceptions and media depictions of this issue. Chapter 5
examines the relationship between level of activism and ability to create
arguments. Chapter 6 summarizes the relationship between argumentation and
activism and the role it plays in managing social issues. It also points to new
directions for future study. In all of these chapters, arguments serve as the

central focus of this study (see Figure 1 below).

12

 

 

 

Figure 1: Dissertation Overview

 

 

ACIIVISITI PUbIIC
Policy
6 Arguments
Histo
ry Public
Opinion

13

Chapter 2

METHODS

The methods used included a public opinion poll, content analysis of local
newspaper coverage, and interviews with activists and non-activists. The
approach taken was consistent with Blumer’s (1948) assumption that
triangulation on public issues is important in order to learn which publics matter.
In addition, the central issue fit Blumer’s criteria of beginning with a decision and
reflecting back on how it occurred. Understanding the context of any social
problem or issue provides added depth and insight into the issue. Therefore, in
part, the issue of domestic partner benefits serves as both a qualitative case
study (Stake, 1995) and a quantitative case study (Yin, 1994) of a decision
making process and the arguments surrounding it.

History and Issues Management

This section of the dissertation includes information from interviews and
archival data. Each are treated below.

Interview sampling and recruitment. Key members of GLFSA and the
University administration, as identified through archival records and referrals,
were contacted and asked to participate In an interview (N=10). Requests for
participation were made through a combination of telephone and email requests.
Of the 10 people contacted, eight agreed to participate. The two who declined
were both administrators. Both felt that they did not know enough about the issue

to participate.

14

 

Interview protocol. A semi-structured interview protocol was created that
included five key questions. Participants were asked how they became involved
in the issue, their knowledge of the history of the issue, their own personal
contributions to the issue, whether or not they had any records they could share,
and who else should be included in these interviews (See Appendix A). All
interviewees signed a consent form that included places for two signatures to
authorize their willingness to participate and their willingness to have their name
used with their interview comments. All except one person allowed me to use
his/her name. This person is referred to as “Alex” in the history chapter.

Two of the interviews were group interviews, involving two and three
individuals respectively. These requests for group interviews were made by the
interviewees themselves, who felt that their responses would be more valid in a
group setting and that they would be less redundant for the interviewer. Both of
these interviews involved activists. All interviews were tape-recorded and later
transcribed word for word. All interviews, except one, were conducted in person.
The exception was because the individuals involved had left MSU and were now
living out of state. The interviews varied in length from 30 to nearly two and a half
hours. The transcript length varied from approximately six to 20 single-spaced,
typed pages.

Archival data sources. The history chapter is supported by other archival
data available publicly, including media data, minutes from University meetings,
and other public documents. Since this information is public record, actual names

are used when linked to these data sources in the subsequent analysis.

15

HistoryLanalysis. Qualitative analysis was used to reconstruct the history
and management of this issue from the interviews and archival data. The
analysis is conducted from the perspective of the activists involved. Not enough
was known about the perspective of others, such as the University administratio
and opposing activists, to include their perspectives. In addition, the perspective
of the pro-domestic partner activists, and how this issue was managed by
GLF SA, was main focus of this study.

Public Ofliion Poll

Sampling and procedures. A stratified random sample was drawn of 540
people within the MSU community. The sample included administrators (N=60),
faculty (N=120), staff (N=120), undergraduates (N=120) and graduate students
(N=120). Samples were drawn from a combination of campus directories and
from the Human Resources Department’s database. The poll was conducted by
a team of trained staff comprised of students and community volunteers over a
two-week period in November of 1997. A large percentage of the sample could
not be reached by telephone despite two attempts, resulting in a valid sample of
261. The total number of respondents was 169, with a valid response rate of
64.8%.

Questionnaire. The questionnaire took approximately 7-10 minutes to
complete. It included questions regarding knowledge of domestic partner
benefits, opinions toward them, respondents’ perceptions of others’ opinions,
media use and content, and a series of demographic questions (see Appendix

A). Arguments and premises were probed to elicit complete responses.

16

Content Analysis of Newspaper Coverage

Sampling. Various types of newspapers were selected for review. The
newspapers included The State News, The Lansing State Journal, The Detroit
Free Press, and The Detroit News. These newspapers were selected because
they were the most commonly named sources of news in both the poll and the
interviews. The State News is the campus student newspaper. The Lansing State
W is the major newspaper of the greater Lansing area. The Detroit News
and The Detroit Free Press are the major newspapers available and read widely
across the state. All relevant news articles from January 1, 1992 until January 1,
1998 were collected. The Moving Forward report, which was the first official
University report recommending the adoption of domestic partner benefits, was
released in 1992. January 1, 1998 is the date that marks the official start of MSU
providing domestic partner benefits. The analysis included all news articles,
stories and features related to partner benefits at Michigan State University.
Editorials were not included in the analyses.

Procedures. Fifty-one articles pertaining to domestic partner benefits were
collected and analyzed. All news articles were coded for length, arguments
presented both for and against domestic partner benefits, and people cited in the
articles. All coding was completed by two coders to enhance reliability. Inter-
coder reliabilities ranged from kappa=0.90 to kappa=1.00.

Argumentation Interviews
Sampling and recruitment. Fifty-two members of the campus community

Participated in the interviews. Eighty people were asked to participate in an in-

17

person interview that lasted approximately an hour and a half. Requests for
participation were made through a combination of telephone and email requests.
Of the 80 people contacted, 14 declined to be interviewed and 14 failed to
respond after multiple attempts, resulting in a response rate of 65.0%. The
sample was drawn in a variety of ways. Initially, those suspected to be high in
activism were identified through media and other archival records and
involvement on the board of GLFSA. Attempts were made to include both
activists for and activists against domestic partner benefits. At the end of each

interview, participants were asked for names of activists both in favor and

 

opposed, and for the name of someone with whom they worked who they
considered to be a non-activist and who would also self-identify as a non-activist.
In the end, very few activists against the issue were included because it proved
extremely difficulty to obtain names of activists working against domestic partner
benefits. This outcome may have occurred because either few existed or they
were not easily identifiable. In addition, the refusal rate was higher among those
who were against partner benefits than those who were for them. It was
suggested by an interview participant that the inability to identify those against
partner benefits was in part due to a campus climate that dictated it was
unacceptable to voice this opinion, due to the University’s push for diversity and
its anti-discrimination clause. This comment suggests the possibility that a “spiral
of silence” was operative (Noelle-Neumann, 1984).

Interview protocol. A modified version of Kuhn’s (1991) protocol was

initially adapted for both domestic partner benefits and parking on campus. The

18

protocol included questions testing various types of reasoning, including the
ability to generate causal theory and justification, contradictory positions,
instrumental reasoning, and epistomological reasoning for each issue. In
addition, open-ended questions were added in the following areas: activism,
media coverage, and demographic measures. A copy of the interview protoo
can be found in Appendix A.

At approximately the midpoint of the interview, between the sections 0
partner benefits and parking, participants were given written measures. The I
was a slightly modified version of Kerpelman’s (1969; 1972) Activity Scale, w
was used to assess level of activism. The Activity Scale includes measures c
individual’s actual behaviors, such as organizing activist groups, participating
activist groups, engaging in political arguments, or writing something designe
influence others. The other questionnaire consisted of a combined shortened
version of the verbal aggression (lnfante & Wigley, 1986) and argumentative!
scales (lnfante & Rancer, 1982). Verbal aggression items included being can
to avoid attacking others’ intelligence, attempts to make others feel good, am
trying not to damage someone else’s self-concept in an argument. Examples
argumentativeness items included feeling nervous and upset after an argumr
finding an argument an intellectual challenge, and feeling that arguing create
more problems than it solves. The original published scales were shortened
based on Boster and Levine’s (1988) confirmatory factor analysis. All intervie
were tape-recorded and later transcribed word for word. The transcript lengtl

ranged from approximately 10 to 20 single-spaced, typed pages.

19

Interview Analysis. For each interview, four causal diagrams were created
for the respondent’s position and an alternative position for both the parking and
domestic partner benefits issues. The length of each causal chain, number of
causal chains, and integration were assessed (for an example, please see
Appendix B). A causal chain is a series of premises that follow logically to a
conclusion. The progression in the chain must be connected to the next point
explicitly by the interviewee or the chain stops. This link was done with words or
phrases such as “therefore,” “it follows that,” or “this leads to that”. All chains

ended with the same conclusion, such as “therefore the university should (or

 

should not) grant domestic partner benefits”. The number of steps or antecedent
points is the length of a causal chain. If chains share points, then that was
considered to be a point of integration. Coding procedures for argumentation was
consistent with Kuhn’s (1991) coding procedures. Cognitive complexity of
arguments was measured by creating an index of the total amount of integration
per subject with the average length of each causal chain, which is a slight
modification of Schroder, Driver and Streufert’s (1967) measure.

A sub-sample of the transcripts was coded by two people in order to
enhance interrater reliability. Fifteen interviews were randomly selected and
causal models were created for the respondent’s own position and an alternative
position for both parking and domestic partner benefits (60 causal models). Of
these, only two differed, one in the number of causal chains and the other in the
length of a causal chain, resulting in nearly perfect interrater reliability. The

second coder also reviewed all of the remaining causal diagrams of the first

20

coder to identify errors such as missing arguments. Very few discrepancies were
found and these suggestions were incorporated into the other causal diagrams.
Two participants were found to be outliers on cognitive complexity items and

were eliminated from further analysis, resulting in a sample of 50 interviews.

 

21

Chapter 3

HISTORY AND ISSUES MANAGEMENT

Issues are created and manipulated (Blumer, 1948). They are often the
result of strategic efforts by individuals, groups and organizations to make their
position heard. Social movement organizations (McCarthy & Zald, 1977) actively
work to contribute to changes at the micro and macro levels. These changes are
often interrelated in that the social movement itself creates and exemplifies a
new pattern of action. In addition, they may change governments and other
institutional processes (Kreisberg, 1988).

The issue of domestic partner benefits is a relatively new issue, not only
for Michigan State University, but for organizations nationwide. The Human
Rights Campaign estimated in September 1999 that 2,856 employers now offer
domestic partner health benefits to employees in same sex relationships. Of
these, 71 are Fortune 500 companies, 445 are other private companies, non-
profits and unions, 99 are colleges and universities, 73 are state and local
governments, and 2,168 are other smaller employers (Human Rights Campaign,
1999). Wilson (1999) stated that this was becoming an increasingly common
issue facing employers, one which most employers would not have considered
ten or fifteen years ago. It has become a major source of organizational conflict
and change. This issue has been strategically managed by activist groups
nationwide, including an organization at Michigan State University eventually

named the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Faculty and Staff Association, or GLFSA.

22

 

This chapter focuses on how this issue was created and managed from the
perspective of GLFSA, and includes data from archival records and from
interviews with GLFSA activists.

On the surface, it would have appeared that there were two events leading
to the University’s eventual decision to grant domestic partner benefits, and that
they were both relatively recent: the Board of Trustees votes in November of
1995 and September of 1997. Examining this issue and this group, in particular,
reveals the complexity of this effort. GLFSA very strategically managed this issue
from the late 1980’s, and there have been several key shifts in the way that they
managed this issue from a communication perspective.

Many public relations theorists (e.g. Caywood, 1997; Crable & Vibbert,
1985, Grunig & Grunig, 1997), political scientists (e.g. Cobb & Elder, 1983), and
sociologlists (Blumer, 1957; 1971; Gamson, 1961; 1966; 1990; Gitlin, 1980;
Jenkins, 1983; Klandermans, 1997; Klandermans & Tarrow, 1988; McCarthy &
Zald, 1977; Morris, 1984, Morris & Mueller, 1992; Snow & Benford, 1988;
Tichenor, Donohue & Olien 1980, Tilly, 1978), for example, have long suggested
that groups can and do actively create issues and bring about policy decisions.
Many of these theorists have offered frameworks to explain how this
phenomenon occurs. Crable and Vibbert (1985) suggested the “Catalytic Model”
of issues management and policy influence in order to understand and examine
the steps by which groups influence decision, making. Their model builds on an
earlier model (see Jones & Chase, 1979) which limits the role of organizations as

being more reactive to policy decisions. In the Catalytic Model, Crable and

23

 

Vibbert (1985) suggest five key stages in issue management: situation
assessment, goal establishment, the move toward imminence, the move toward
current status, and a move toward making an issue critical. This model is not
always unidirectional, as changes in the environment may cause the group to
step back and reassess along the way. Although any political process has steps
involved, these models tend to oversimplify the communication processes
involved. For example, needs assessment, which Crable and Vibbert (1985) see
as the first phase of this model, is an on-going process. GLFSA, and other
activist organizations, must constantly monitor and assess their environment and
make needed adjustments along the way if they are going to continue to work in
a proactive environment. Rather than working from these models, this chapter
will assess key shifts in the management of this issue that led to changes in what
and with whom GLFSA chose to communicate. There were four key periods that
were analyzed: (1) The creation of the University-Wide Task Force on Lesbian
and Gay Issues and the release of the Moving FonNard report in November 1992,
(2) The period leading up to the eventual decision regarding a staff members’
request for a spousal ID card for her domestic partner, called the “Kate Murphy
case”, (3) The period leading up to and the eventual decision by the MSU Board
of Trustees in November 1995 to table the issue of domestic partner benefits,
and (4) The events leading up to the September 1997 MSU Board of Trustees

meeting when they chose to grant domestic partner benefits.

24

The following section is based on archival data and interviews from
several key people who released the use of their names for identification In this
document. They included:

(1) Terry Stein. Terry Stein was president of GLFSA during the first vote of
the Board of Trustees and co-chaired the University-VVrde Task Force
on Lesbian and Gay Issues. At the time, he was a professor in the
Department of Psychiatry. Dr. Stein retired in 1996.

(2) Christopher Carmichael. Chris Carmichael was the first president of

GLFSA. He co-chaired the committee on Campus Climate of the

 

University-Wide Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues. He was an
academic specialist on campus working for the MSU Museum. Mr.
Carmichael left the University in 1996.

(3) John Huebler. John Huebler was president of GLFSA during the
second vote of the Board of Trustees. He co-chaired the committee on
Staff Concerns and Employment Issues of the University-Wide Task
Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues. He was a computer specialist for
Administrative Information Services. Mr. Huebler left the University in
1998.

(4) Mary C. Murphy (Kate). Kate Murphy served on the board of GLFSA
for a number of years. She co-chaired the committee on Special
Concerns of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Students of the University-
Wide Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues. Dr. Murphy is an

administrator in the Department of Residence Life.

25

(5) Cheryllee Finney. Cheryllee Finney was on the board of GLFSA at the
time of the second vote of the Board of Trustees. She also served as
domestic partner benefits coordinator for GLFSA in 1997. Ms. Finney
was also active in the Clerical-Technical Union on campus, where she
also had some involvement working on domestic partner Issues. Ms.
Finney is an editor with the Centennial Review.

(6) Brent Bilodeau. Brent Bilodeau has served as a liaison to the GLFSA
board. He is the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Student Coordinator for

Students in the Office of Student Affairs and an advisor to the Alliance

 

of Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgendered Students.

(7) Sue Carter. Sue Carter served on the University Faculty Affairs
Committee and the workgroup that considered domestic partner
benefits. Ms. Carter is an associate professor in the Department of
Journalism and an attorney.

(8) “Alex”. “Alex” was a university administrator who was involved with the

domestic partner benefits issue. “Alex” did not want to be identified by

name.
The University-Wide Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues

Some form of institutional protection for gays and lesbians has existed at
Michigan State University since February 25, 1977 (Moving Forward, 1992). On
that date, the MSU Board of Trustees voted unanimously to revise the anti-
discrimination policy to include sexual orientation. Despite this step, many

university policies did not reflect what many would call equal treatment. In one of

26

several moves to respond to a perception of an increase in incidents of hate
crimes against gays and lesbians on campus and to discuss these issues, a
faculty group formed in 1989. The faculty discussion group reviewed a University
document entitled “Institutional Diversity: Excellence in Action”, commonly known
as MSU IDEA. The document addressed diversity issues on campus, but sexual
orientation was not discussed in any detail. The group recommended several
changes to Provost David Scott. As a result of the meetings with Provost Scott
and others, formation of a university task force to examine gay and lesbian
issues was suggested in 1990. According to Terry Stein and Chris Carmichael
(personal communication, December 16, 1997), at this point Provost Scott and
Vice Presidents Moses Turner and Roger \Mlkinson invited two consultants from
Rutgers University to MSU to discuss gay and lesbian issues. The purpose of the
Rutgers consultants’ visit in December 1990 was to talk about the process of
issuing a comprehensive report on gay and lesbian issues on their campus, and
to help inform the larger community about the need for a similar task force at
MSU (Moving Forward, 1992). The University-Wide Task Force on Lesbian and
Gay Issues was formed shortly thereafter with the support of several University
administrators, including President John DiBiaggio. At the urging of the
consultants, the task force included representation from all units and strata of the
university (Moving Forward, 1992). Professor Anita Skeen of the English
Department and Professor Terry Stein of the Psychiatry Department served as
chairs of the task force, which included 48 members and eight sub-committees.

The numbers and breadth of representation provided many opportunities for

27

lasting interorganizational linkages that had not previously existed. These
included links between GLFSA and upper-level administrators, union officials,
and others that proved invaluable later in the process. Chris Carmichael
(personal communication, December 16, 1999) recalled that one of the strategies
that emerged from the structure of the task force was that:

It was an enormous body of people... We had straight people and gay and

lesbian people and people from all over the University who were basically

supportive folk. Later it became very helpful that they had been involved
with the process of the task force because they were much more up to
speed on our issues as these other things started percolating through the

University.

The first meeting of the task force was held May 9, 1991.

At the same time that the task force was being formed, the faculty
discussion group grew into the MSU Gay and Lesbian Faculty and Staff
Association (GLFSA). In the spring of 1991, the approximately 40 charter
members wrote bylaws and elected officers (Moving Forward, 1992). Academic
staff member Christopher Carmichael was its first president (Terry Stein,
personal communication, December 16, 1997).

The task force spent a great deal of time researching the issues through
surveys, focus groups and public forums (Moving Forward, 1992). The results of
these studies and the ensuing recommendations were released in the form of a
report in November 1992. Moving FonNard: Lesbians and Gay Men at Michigan

State University Included hundreds of task force recommendations in seven

28

 

categories: creating a supportive environment, working at the University, learning
at the University, being a student at the University, responding to special
challenges, moving ahead and organizing for the future. Despite the long list of
recommendations, Terry Stein (personal communication, December 16, 1997)
stated that “everyone saw domestic partner benefits as probably the top one or
two or three issues that we were dealing with.” John Huebler, who served as oo-
chair of the Staff Concerns and Employment Issues Work Group that at
inception, said the group saw domestic partner benefits as a key issue. Huebler
(personal communication, December 15, 1999) stated that “in terms of our
working group, it was a foregone conclusion that domestic partner benefits were
going to be one of the recommendations, even though we hadn’t done the study
yet.” This was the first official university document to recommend granting
domestic partner benefits.

According to Kate Murphy, the day that the task force released its report
was the day of Acting President Gordon Guyer’s first public appearance
(personal communication, December 15, 1999), and Provost Scott, who had
helped form the task force, had left the University. This was significant because
key administrative leadership that had been responsible for initiating the task
force was gone and in its place were individuals who were temporary, and
therefore unlikely to act on the recommendations. GLFSA and the task force
were proud of the report, felt that it was comprehensive and were hopeful the
recommendations would be implemented (Kate Murphy, December 15, 1999).

Following the release of the report, an implementation advisory group was

29

formed by the new Provost to study the recommendations of the task force and
to advise the administration on how to implement them, but this had very little
influence on the administration (John Huebler, personal communication,
December 15, 1999).

The Kate Murphv Case

GLFSA and task force members became frustrated that implementation of
recommendations seemed to remain at a standstill. Shortly after the task force
report was released, Peter McPherson, a conservative Republican, was
appointed president of the University. The changes in upper-level administration
represented what political sociologists would call significant changes in the
political opportunity structure that allow activists and others more or less entry
into influencing the system (e.g. Jenkins & Perrow, 1977; McAdam, McCarthy, &
Zald, 1996; Tarrow, 1983; Tilly, 1978). These changes proved significant in later
attempts to gain cooperation from the University in implementing domestic
partner benefits.

Because of feelings of frustration regarding the lack of response from the
University administration, GLFSA began to examine alternate methods of
persuading the University to implement domestic partner benefits. In October of
1994, nearly two years after the task force report was released, The State News
reported that six members of GLFSA filed a complaint with the Anti-
Discrimination Judiciary Board (ADJB), asking the University to grant domestic

partner benefits for same sex couples under the University’s anti-discrimination

3O

 

policy (Pfeiffer, 1994). Former GLFSA president Chris Carmichael, current
GLFSA president Terry Stein, and staff member Kate Murphy were among them.

Other strategies were also used. One of the arguments that had been
used by the opposition was that if MSU administrators granted domestic partner
benefits, then donations would decrease in protest. GLFSA, in response, initiated
a campaign asking alumni and other financial contributors to the University to
withhold donations (Pfeiffer, 1994). Former GLFSA president Chris Carmichael
(personal communication, December 16, 1999) described this policy as very
difficult for him on a personal level:

I really felt that I could not give, even though I was passionately attached

to my unit, the MSU Museum, that has been very inclusive of gay and

lesbian concerns in any way they could be inclusive as a staff and as an
administrative unit, but I couldn’t financially contribute to an institution that
was so clearly not supporting me. It was a real hard thing. It was symbolic,
but I think it was important.

Also during 1994, Wayne State University became the first state university
in Michigan to extend benefits to same sex domestic partners of employees
(Pfeiffer, 1994). This helped to provide GLFSA with evidence of a precedent
having been set at a similar university in the state, and began to erode the
argument that it was against state policy for a state university to provide these
benefits since these couples are not legally recognized even under common law
(Zaroo, 1995). In early 1995, the University of Michigan followed suit when their

Board of Trustees also extended benefits to same sex domestic partners.

31

 

Staff member Kate Murphy had been one of the six members who initially
filed suit with the ADJB. She also filed a second case later with the ADJB to try to
obtain a spousal ID card that would have granted her partner the same free
access to university facilities, such as libraries and athletic facilities, that married
spouses have. The ADJB ruled that the original case was outside of their
jurisdiction (Kate Murphy, personal communication, December 15, 1997).
However, in June of 1995, the ADJB ruled that the spousal ID card policy was in
direct conflict with other MSU anti-discrimination policies (Snow & Wilson, 1995).

However, on July 26, in a memo sent to Kate Murphy and later released by

 

Murphy to The State News, the President overturned this decision, saying that it
was too closely tied to the domestic partner benefits issue and that the
implications needed to be examined further before any changes would be made.

GLFSA and Kate Murphy made the strategic decision not to go to the
press with this issue until late August when more of the MSU community was on
campus. Murphy felt that this decision by the President suggested that her
partner was not a member of the MSU community, and it “became a watchword
for a lot of the people in GLFSA” and made others see the lack of equal
treatment to which everyone, regardless of sexuality, could relate (Kate Murphy,
personal communication, December 15, 1999). John Huebler (personal
communication, December 15, 1999) commented on the significance of this case
in GLFSA’s fight for partner benefits:

I think the whole thing that Kate went through was very key in terms of

public attitudes. And I really love that when you work on an issue, when

32

you can bring a human face to it, whether it’s a gay-lesbian issue or

anything else, it is one thing in theory, but it’s another thing when

somebody says “this is who I am, this is how it what is going on affects me

and my family, and this is how it needs to change”. And a lot of people say

“Yeah, that’s right”.

Kate Murphy (personal communication, December 15, 1997) felt betrayed
by the President and said she learned a valuable lesson.

Politics is learning to deal with the political climate and realizing that

everyone has their gloves on and you have to put yours on, too. That is

just the way that it is. That was a tough lesson.
This ADJB decision and the dismissal of the others shifted GLFSA’s focus to the
MSU Board of Trustees, who now appeared to be the only decision making body
that would favorably rule on granting domestic partner benefits.
The November 1995 Board of Trustees Meeting

Following the Kate Murphy case, it became apparent from the President’s
office and from other sources that the MSU Board of Trustees would address
domestic partner benefits at its November board meeting. The strategy that
GLFSA took was to gain as much visible support as possible. They were very
public about their actions and their desires to get the University to grant domestic
partner benefits. This was a period where GLFSA took advantage of some of the
boundary spanners that they had within their ranks and with the affiliations they
had made with people serving on the task force. For example, GLFSA member

and domestic partner activist Cheryllee Finney noted that the president of the

33

 

Clerical-Technical Union, Rondy Murray, had been on the task force and later
became head of the coalition of bargaining units on campus. Finney noted that
as a result, “she was able to answer questions even from the people that... were
more resistant. She was able to say ‘so what’ and really just talk to people. And
once people say ‘so what’, quite often other people just say ‘yeah’” (personal
communication, December 15, 1997). Several of the seven staff unions, including
the Clerical Technical Union, began to lobby for domestic partner benefits in their
contract negotiations with MSU administration.

Support was also garnered from the University Faculty Affairs Committee
(UFAC) and from the Council of Graduate Students (COGS). The UFAC began
to look at the issue of domestic partner benefits in September 1994, when the
committee was approached by Provost Lou Anna Simon. Professor Sue Carter
helped to examine materials from other universities where domestic partner
benefits were in place. A small workgroup was formed, including Sue Carter,
which examined the documents and put forth a recommendation that was
endorsed by the UFAC and Academic Council in 1995 that benefits be extended
for both same and opposite sex domestic partners of employees (Sue Carter,
personal communication, February 11, 1998). COGS similarly voted in early
November 1995 to pass a resolution supporting the extension of benefits to
domestic partners (Barnard, 1995).

Another source of help came from the Human Resources Department at
MSU. It issued a report that was made available to the MSU Board of Trustees

outlining the procedures used by other employers for granting partner benefits,

34

 

expected costs to MSU based on the experience of other employers, sample
affidavits of partnerships used elsewhere, and other pertinent information.
GLFSA felt the research done by Human Resources was very objective. Kate
Murphy (personal communication, December 15, 1997) noted that “The kind of
reports that they have put together for the Board were very objective. I think the
objectivity diminished and minimized the big arguments that everyone had
against having domestic partner benefits”. Although the Human Resources staff
did not formally endorse benefits, the information they provided helped to erode
many arguments that the opposition had raised. This process of what Condit and
Condit (1992) refer to as “incremental erosion” is an important strategy that
involves the use of rhetoric by activists to slowly and steadily challenge and deny
the assumptions on which their opponents build their case. This report countered
many of the oppositions’ arguments. For example, the document provided
evidence that the cost for providing benefits was extremely low, that few actually
signed up for the benefits due in part to tax ramifications for unmarried couples,
and that proof of domestic partnerships could be provided and monitored,
minimizing the argument that employees would sign up roommates and friends.

Much of the strategy that GLFSA took was to involve as many people as
publicly as possible. According to Kate Murphy (personal communication,
December 15, 1999):

If I were going to summarize a strategy that we utilized in that initial

campaign leading up to the November ‘95 vote, it would be that we were

kind of in your face, out there, visible, talking to the media, trying to stir up

35

 

as much support as we could by talking to colleagues, talking to friends in

the community, talking to members of the legislature, members of the

Michigan state legislature, members of community activist groups, and

then regular contact with Board members. A lot of us called and visited

with members of the Board prior to the meeting.

GLFSA board member John Huebler commented that a core group from
GLFSA met several times with staff from President McPherson’s office in the fall
of 1995. It was the President who advised GLFSA that domestic partner benefits
would be on the agenda, at least as a discussion item, for the November Board
of Trustees meeting (John Huebler, personal communication, December 15,
1997). The President advised GLFSA that it could not be predicted how the
Board of Trustees would vote, and that GLFSA should prepare by doing some
lobbying. GLFSA board members also spoke regularly with reporters from The
State News and other local and state-wide media. GLFSA member Brent
Bilodeau suggested that these strategies were encouraged by the President and
by others, to “mobilize; do a letter writing campaign, be very public... line up
people to come and speak” (personal communication, March 18, 1998).

According to a State News article, Dr. Nancy Pogel, executive staff
assistant to President McPherson, reported that the Board of Trustees would
probably vote on domestic partner benefits at their November 9, 1995 meeting
(Snow, 1995). GLFSA made sure that they had a number of advocates prepared
to speak at the Board of Trustees meeting (Brent Bilodeau, personal

communication, March 18, 1998; John Huebler, personal communication,

36

 

December 15, 1999). This Board of Trustees meeting and the impending
discussion of domestic partner benefits were very highly publicized prior to the
meeting, which led to a large turnout of both supporters and opponents of
domestic partner benefits that was reported to total more than 100 people
(Carter, 1995). The appearance of the opposition, although expected, was the
first formal group opposition that GLFSA had encountered.

After hearing from those attending the board meeting, President
McPherson spoke and advised the Board of Trustees to vote against domestic
partner benefits (MSU Board of Trustees’ Minutes, November 9, 1995). This
recommendation came as a shock to GLFSA members, who had not anticipated
that the President would speak against extending benefits. The Board did not
follow the recommendation, however. They put forth a substitute motion that was
unanimously passed by the eight members of the Board of Trustees to study the
issue further and not to take any action on the issue for 24 months (John
Huebler, personal communication, December 15, 1999).

The September 1997 Board of Trustees Meeting

GLFSA activists learned multiple lessons from their experience at the
November 1995 Board of Trustees meeting. Brent Bilodeau (personal
communication, March 18, 1998) summarized some of the reasons behind their
defeat at the Board of Trustees meeting:

We really didn’t know the political system well enough at the time to know

the votes were counted months before, and if anything it felt like a

37

 

smokescreen to lead people to believe that we would have a voice, that

we would have an opportunity to be heard.

Looking back, John Huebler (personal communication, December 15, 1997) also
commented about GLFSA’s naivete regarding how the Board of Trustees
operated:

We believe we only had two votes in favor in November of ‘95. It was

conceivable that there were as many as three. Actually it is conceivable

that there were as many as 4 in favor of it. There were at least 4 against it.

So, in retrospect, the best we had was a 4-4 tie, which would have caused

it not to pass. It is true that the issue was better served by the vote to do

nothing for two years. Bitter as that was, it was true that saved the issue.

That doesn’t justify all the things that were said that day, but I just want to

make sure it doesn’t look or sound like I am agreeing with what they voted

to do. We were very naive. We went into that meeting thinking we could
potentially have 5 votes in favor, and that was completely wrong.

There were intense emotional reactions from GLFSA members and
supporters who felt very passionately about this issue. This included support
from the staff of the campus newspaper. The editorial board published an article
in the November 10, 1995 issue of The State News condemning the delayed vote
and lack of support for granting benefits, and providing phone numbers of all the
members of the Board of Trustees and President McPherson so readers could
call them (Editorial Board, 1995). In a similarly unusual move for an “objective”

media source, The State News board of directors voted shortly thereafter to

 

38

enact a limited economic boycott of the University, including changing all
meetings to off-campus sites (Johnson, 1995). The support of news staff proved
helpful in the months to come.

Undergraduate student supporters, including members of the Alliance of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Students (ALGBTS), reacted
passionately. Brent Bilodeau (personal communication, March 18, 1997)
described it in this way:

I remember being there present and being there with students [at the

Board vote]. There was a feeling of complete betrayal. Complete betrayal.

 

A feeling of being screwed over, being fucked over. I don’t know how else
to articulate that. But my impression was that the impact on students was
devastating. And it was really that decision that shifted student
organizations on this campus--l’m thinking about the Alliance in particular,
which had not really for a number of years been particularly activist in its
orientation--l think the decision caused many students to see with crystal
clarity how institutionalized homophobia and heterosexism were operating
at the highest level within the institution and at many other levels. The
feelings of student mistrust for administration probably at that time were at
the highest level I had ever seen.

Brent Bilodeau said that in the months following the vote, he and a member of

the counseling center were approached by students about how they live in an

environment that is characterized by rampant homophobia and heterosexism.

Brent explained that “essentially they were asking us to teach them how to be...

39

activists” (Brent Bilodeau, personal communication, March 18, 1997). This led to
the founding and the formation of the Homophobia Action Group, a student
activist organization on campus.

For many, the interesting part about the Board of Trustees vote was that
they perceived that opinions on campus supported the extension of benefits. One
administrator (“Alex”, personal communication, January 16, 1998) commented
that :

It’s an issue that I think... based on bargaining unit feedback, that you

tend to have a relatively small set of people that are adamantly opposed to

 

it... But I think that most people are actually fine with this. But I think that
you get very stringent pronouncements made by a very small set.
Brent Bilodeau.(personal communication, March 18, 1997) also perceived overall
campus support:
My perception was, is, that every segment of the university almost
universally embraced the movement toward DPB’s. When we look at what
all the faculty and staff groups, the bargaining groups, the student
organizations. And so my perception was, the first time around, universal
support, very low opposition... In some ways one could say that certainly
in terms of sort of the popular opinion of the community certainly
outweighed what was happening with the board. The reality though is that
the board ultimately had the power... and that is not where popular

opinion was.

40

The activists learned several key lessons. One was that public opinion,
both around the campus and in the state, seemed to matter very little. The
second was that the President was not the ally that many had perceived him to
be. The third was that the President’s view did not matter. The Board did not vote
with his recommendation. Kate Murphy (personal communication, December 15,
1 997) stated:

In the process of going through this the first time, we learned something

about how decisions are made at the University, and we learned that

having the President as an ally was not essential to getting what we

 

wanted.
The fourth was that the only thing that mattered ultimately was what members of
the Board thought and how to best count votes in advance. The fifth lesson was
that despite the fact that The State News staff and editorial board had been
extremely supportive, media attention and public attention are not necessarily a
positive contributor. Cheryllee Finney (personal communication, December 15,
1997) commented:
We really learned that all the public stuff, all the hullabaloo, all the things
that we did, really have very little impact. If anything, those actions
seemed to just cause the Right to mobilize, and brought our challengers
fonlvard.
The major shifts simplified GLFSA’s points of attack. The MSU Board of Trustees

became the major focus of their attention, while other paths were nearly

 

41

eliminated. In addition, GLFSA began to directly communicate with Board

members instead of using the President as a mediator (see Figures 2 and 3 ).

Figure 2: Overall Strategy of Influence Leading to November 1995 Vote
Activists —> President ——> Trustees

\ K/

Media ’ Public

Figure 3: Overall Strategy of Influence Leading to September 1997 Vote

Activists 4r——> Trustees

Some strategies continued. GLFSA renewed its call for a donation
boycott. The group continued to erode arguments such as the cost of providing
benefits and that insurance companies would refuse to participate. According to
John Huebler, these arguments began to disappear, and he perceived the
economic boycotts had increased (personal communication, December 15,
1997). In addition, GLFSA did make a series of public statements decrying the
Board of Trustees’ decision and making it clear that they would be looking for
public statements and records of candidates for the Board in the coming election.

Cheryllee Finney (personal communication, December 15, 1997) noted an
increase in GLFSA’s ability to organize members. John Huebler (personal
communication, December 15, 1997) noted that one positive outcome of the

November board meeting was that a number of people started joining or re-

42

joining GLFSA, or becoming more involved in assisting with this effort. Huebler
noted that “nothing motivates people to organize like depression”.

Another important strategy was added. Kate Murphy (personal
communication, December 15, 1997) commented that GLFSA began that year to
have annual receptions each fall where key administrators were invited. Murphy
added that the popularity of those receptions grew over the years and that her
perception of the outcome was that “GLFSA improved in the eyes of the
institution [MSU] as a viable campus organization, as a powerful campus

organization.” Being seen as powerful has been noted by scholars as an

 

important factor in persuasion. Heath (1997, p. 180) wrote that “Power and
persuasion support one another. Persuasion helps people committed to the belief
that groups that have power deserve to keep it and, therefore, their policies and
actions are correct.”

GLFSA noted that despite the fact that the Board had placed a two-year
study period on the issue of domestic partner benefits, the administration
seemed to be doing little. In January of 1996, in a memo to GLFSA President
Terry Stein, President McPherson outlined how the Board would study the issue.
He noted two factors. The first was that the Board of Trustees would follow the
experiences of peer institutions and that they would continue to monitor state and
federal legislation (Johnson, 1996). The GLFSA reaction to this memo was that
this was effectively non-action and that the Human Resources Department had

already provided a comprehensive report outlining these climate issues.

43

In 1996, two key changes in the political opportunity structure occurred.
One was a change in GLFSA. The other was a change in membership of the
Board of Trustees. Both changes had a significant impact on how this issue was
managed during the period leading up to the second Board of Trustees vote.

In 1996, two key leaders of GLFSA, Terry Stein and Chris Carmichael, left
the University and moved out of state. John Huebler became the next president
of GLFSA. Terry Stein had been an extremely outspoken advocate of domestic
partner benefits on campus. Chris Carmichael noted that Terry Stein was seen at
times as “combative” (personal communication, December 16, 1999). Terry Stein
compared himself to John Huebler by saying that “I was just so connected to this
and just so heavily involved at so many levels, as was John, but in a different
way. I think sometimes my effectiveness was less because I was seen as such
an advocate”. Terry Stein noted that John Huebler’s style was more behind the
scenes, and that John Huebler was extremely effective in utilizing
interorganizational linkages between GLFSA and members of the administration.

John Huebler noted a key shift in strategy that occurred because of some
differences in affiliations with the University. John Huebler was a staff person,
and Terry Stein had been a faculty member. John Huebler (personal
communication, December 15, 1999) commented:

I want to be real careful that this doesn’t sound like one way was right or

wrong, but there were some changes that happened at a good time. And,

while they [Chris Carmichael and Terry Stein] were here the real push for

domestic partner benefits, while it was coming from faculty and staff, the

44

 

highest level of conversation was happening with the Provost and the
faculty. When they left... for better or for worse, the argument ended up
with folks like Cheryl and Kate and myself who had worked for a long time,
but had come from the staff side, and who talked and got in more
discussion through Roger Wilkinson and Human Resources than it did
through the Provost and academic council. That was right about the time
that we worked on the trustee election and decided that we would lobby
the trustees directly. And that was something that we were better
equipped to do than some faculty because of the history that we come
from off-campus political groups as opposed to parochial faculty
communities... Now, I still believe the same thing would have happened. If
we had gone into September ‘97 with that board had Terry and Chris still
been here leading the charge, I think we would have gotten the same
thing. It just felt like the debate shifted to a different place and possibly
some slightly different tactics.

John Huebler (personal communication, December 15, 1997) saw a key

difference between his philosophy as a staff person and of the philosophy of

Terry Stein and Chris Carmichael who had held academic positions.
If I could summarize all of that, I would say the faculty position was always
‘we will continue to talk about this is the right thing and of course, the
provost and trustees will realize it is the right thing.’ The staff organizer
side of it was always ‘we have to win votes.’ We have to win 5 of 8 votes.

Those votes may not always come because it is the right thing to do. They

45

may come for political reasons. There may be political compromises In

there. That is the way we will win the issue.
Huebler also noted that this was a good time to make the shift from faculty
organizing to staff organizing, because by this point Academic Governance, 3
key faculty organization, was solidly behind the effort.

Before Chris Carmichael and Terry Stein left, GLFSA held a reception on
their behalf. Kate Murphy (personal communication, December 15, 1997) noted
that this had the effect of bringing together key people from all over campus,

such as Human Resources staff and administrators, and reinforcing

 

interorganizational linkages. This provided an opportunity, both formally and
informally, for the issue to be discussed with people that had been involved from
the beginning and who were going to help it through to the end.

The other key change in the political opportunity structure came In the
form of an election for Board of Trustees positions. Two positions were open in
the fall of 1996. In Michigan, state-funded universities have boards of trustees
that are publicly elected by the voters of the entire state. Two MSU Board
members were trying to maintain their positions: Dee Cook and Russell Mawby.
Both are Republicans. They were challenged by several other candidates.
According to John Huebler (personal communication, December 16, 1997),
GLFSA cooperated with the Lansing Area Human Rights Political Action
Committee (LAHRPAC). LAHRPAC conducts surveys with candidates regarding
their stances on gay and lesbian issues. According to John Huebler, they

supplied LAHRPAC with the text of questions regarding candidates’ positions on

46

domestic partner benefits at MSU. The results of the poll were given to the media
and mailed to GLFSA members. In addition, GLFSA members attended public
forums and asked candidates where they stood on domestic partner benefits.
According to John Huebler (personal communication, December 15, 1997), it
was in the poll and the public forums that Democratic candidate Joel Ferguson
publicly voiced support for domestic partner benefits. The November election
resulted in the re-election of Trustee Dee Cook and the new appointment of Joel
Ferguson. This election shifted the Board composition to a 5-3 Democratic
majority. This was important because the Democratic Party had tended to be
more open to gay and lesbian issues than the Republican Party. Brent Bilodeau
(personal communication, March 18, 1998) noted that this was an important shift.
“This is all about politics and power. This is all about political parties. It’s the
composition of the Board that is really going to be the determining factor”. All

Board of Trustees members were asked by The State News in April 1997 to state

 

their positions on domestic partner benefits, with the results appearing in a front-
page article (Machniak, 1997).

In the spring of 1997, Cheryllee Finney joined the GLFSA board in a newly
created position as coordinator of domestic partner benefits. Cheryllee Finney
brought added labor union experience to the GLFSA board and provided a
personal focus to advocating for benefits. The discussion and activism began to
happen almost solely behind closed doors (Cheryllee Finney, personal
communication, December 15, 1997). ALGBTS activists met with GLFSA, were

advised of the shift in strategy and were asked to join them in advocating behind

47

the scenes and to not involve the press in any way. Cheryllee Finney (personal
communication, December 15, 1997) recalled that the students agreed with the
GLFSA strategy and wanted to be supportive, but noted that she got the feeling
from the students that if this didn’t work the students were ready to try more
drastic measures. She commented that “It sort of felt like if this doesn’t go down
this time, we’re going to burn the President’s house down..., major
demonstrations, Administration Building sit—ins, take-overs.

Many of those interviewed spoke about doing everything that they could to
keep the media out of the discussion. Kate Murphy (personal communication,
December 15, 1999) acknowledged that “we discouraged a member of our group
who is affiliated with the media from attending meetings so he wouldn’t be
compromised as a journalist”. John Huebler (personal communication, December
15, 1997) noted that “there were times when The State News was clearly on the
wrong path, and I did not correct them.” This was a dilemma for him because “I
wanted them to know what was going on, but I believed that if they knew what
was going on they would print it, and printing it would be detrimental to our
cause”. Kate Murphy (personal communication, December 15, 1997) noted that
they had gotten advice from Trustees to stay away from the papers and to “not
make this a media circus”. John Huebler (personal communication, December
15, 1997) added that his perception of the advice they received from supportive
Trustees was that “they did not want to read about it in the paper, hear about it
on television, or receive letters from constituents.” This shift in strategy with the

media made him understand “how the political process compromises people a bit

48

 

in terms of total honesty.” Choosing to keep news coverage to a minimum
eliminated the problem of concerns over actual media content and whether or not
coverage was fair or objective. Many media scholars address the use of media
coverage and how that can hurt or help campaigns. As early as 1922, Walter
Lippmann (p. 32) addressed this by suggesting that activist groups control
content In whatever ways that they can.

GLFSA continued to count votes and to communicate only with Board
members who either had been publicly supportive or who were undecided, and
avoided those who had been adamantly opposed. In early summer of 1998,
GLFSA knew that the 24 month study period would be coming to a close. In early
summer, GLFSA was alerted by members of the Board of Trustees and by some
close to the Board that this issue was going to come up in the fall and probably
sooner rather than later. John Huebler (personal communication, December 15,
1999) remembers being told that the votes were probably there, and that they
should pay attention, make a few calls to key trustees, and to prepare. GLFSA
gained the support that summer from the remaining Democrats on the Board and
were alerted that Trustee Robert Weiss would call for a vote at the September 12
meeting. Kate Murphy and John Huebler (personal communication, December
15, 1997) recalled that during this period there had been no conversations
between GLFSA and the President’s office or University administration, until they
received a call on the weekend prior to the September meeting from the
President’s office requesting a Monday morning meeting with GLFSA

representatives to update them on some important developments. Kate Murphy

49

(personal communication, December 15, 1997) noted that “they played dumb”
and “went to the meeting, and we heard what we already knew”. They were given
the text of the proposed resolution and were advised that the text could change
before Friday’s meeting, but that this was the wording to which Trustee Weiss
and President McPherson had agreed. John Huebler (personal communication,
December 15, 1997) explained that the GLFSA representatives were given:
Some supporting information about partnership agreements that they
would be likely to require. The proposed resolution included Information

about which benefits would be offered and to whom. They [the President’s

 

office staff] spoke very frankly about collective bargaining in the unions.

They spoke very frankly about implementation being likely to begin

January 1, 1998, and they spoke very frankly about where they saw the

votes coming in and about what we should do.

Kate Murphy and Cheryllee Finney (December 15, 1997) recalled having been
advised to keep quiet and to keep this out of the papers until the Board wants it
released. Ultimately, it did not appear in any media until Wednesday morning,
which was the 48 hours required between the first public notice and the vote
(John Huebler, personal communication, December 15, 1997).

The lack of media attention and the date of the vote were key to
minimizing the opposition’s participation in the decision making process. The
vote came just under 22 months after the original vote to study the issue for 24
months. John Huebler (personal communication, December 15, 1997)

remembers that the opposition was caught by surprise. Cheryllee Finney

50

(personal communication, December 15, 1997) noted that the opposition was
upset by the lack of warning. John Huebler (personal communication, December
15, 1997) empathized with the opposition but was pleased by the September
vote that granted domestic partner benefits:
If I were them I would be upset as well. I am really happy that it worked
out that way, but I think I would have been really pissed if it had been
something that was supposed to happen in 24 months happened in 22. I
guess it just feels different to be on the winning side.

The Board of Trustees voted to extend benefits to domestic partners of

 

faculty and staff on September 12, 1998 (Board of Trustees’ Minutes, September
12, 1998). MSU administrator “Alex” described the vote and the lack of
opposition:

This time it went really quite smoothly without a huge amount of public

outcry. I’m pleased about that because I think that there was less anguish

over it for the organizations involved in that... I think it had to do with the
process... It didn’t evolve into the polarized issue that it had been.

The resolution extended benefits to same sex partners with some
exceptions. Benefits were immediately granted to all faculty, academic staff, and
graduate students with assistantships. Benefits were also granted to staff
pending the approval of the various unions, all of which eventually endorsed the
benefits. Benefits were not extended to any undergraduate students or to
graduate students without assistantships. In addition, the policy did not, and still

does not, cover employees under other circumstances. For example, residence

51

hall directors who have live-in positions can have spouses reside with them, but
can not have their domestic partners reside with them. There was an initial open
enrollment period for registering domestic partners in November and health
benefits were extended beginning January 1, 1998. The open enrollment period
ended with 19 employees choosing to enroll spouses and/or children (John
Huebler, personal communication, December 15, 1997). This number was similar
to many estimates and the experience of other universities (Fried, Ferejohn,

Franklin, Greely et al., 1994).

 

52

Chapter 4

PUBLIC OPINION AND MEDIA ANALYSIS

An overview of the results from the poll and media data are presented in
this chapter. First, the poll results are described. Second, the content analysis of
newspaper coverage is presented. Last, the arguments supporting positions
given in the poll and the media data are described and compared.

Poll Results

 

Response rates. Poll participants were representative of the University as

 

a whole. Participants in all categories were difficult to reach, despite multiple
attempts. Students were much more willing than others to participate in the poll,
although overall there was a response rate of 31.3%. The sample and the
response rates for each group are reported in the Table 1 below along with the

number of people actually reached by phone.

Table 1: Poll Response Rates by University Affiliation

 

Number Number Response

Group Sample Reached Participating Rate

Undergraduates 120 43 38 31.7%
Graduate students 120 42 39 32.5%
Staff 120 58 36 30.0%
Faculty 120 66 38 31 .7%
Administrators 60 32 18 30.0%
OVERALL 540 261 169 31.3%

53

 

 

Poll demographics. Survey participants represented a variety of groups

and backgrounds. Respondents represented a cross-section of affiliation with the

University. Twenty-two and a half percent of the respondents were faculty, 21.3%

were staff, 23.1% were graduate students, 22.5% were undergraduate students,
and 10.7% were administrators. There was a wide range of ages represented,
from 17 to 73, with a mean age of 38 (SD=14). Approximately 43% were male
and 57% were female. Most respondents were Caucasian (86.1%), which is
consistent with the overall population of the campus. Most survey participants
identified as Protestant (38.2%), Catholic (29.1%) or with no religious
identification (21.3%). The respondents, as expected, were well-educated.
Approximately 1.2% of them had no college education, and 26% held a
doctorate. When asked which political party, if any, they belonged to,
respondents were most likely to identify as independent (57.5%), followed by
Democrat (29.3%) or Republican (12.6%).

Knowledge Questions

When asked in an open-ended question what were some of the major

 

issues on campus that the MSU Board of Trustees had acted upon recently, 29%

of the respondents named the passage of domestic partner benefits. When
asked what are the major issues on campus that the MSU board of trustees
should consider in the near future, 20% named parking.

In a series of questions, respondents were asked which, if any, of several
public universities in Michigan have granted domestic partner benefits to their

employees. Only 12% knew that Wayne State University has them, 8.5% knew

54

 

 

that Eastern University has them, and 39.8% of respondents knew that the
University of Michigan has them. Very few correctly answered “no” to whether or
not Western Michigan University, Central Michigan University, Northern Michigan
University, and Grand Valley State University have domestic partner benefits
(from 6.7% to 8.5%). Most people responded that they did not know whether or
not those universities had benefits.

Most respondents, 63.7%, did know that MSU had granted these benefits
and of those, 88.9% were able to identify correctly that the benefits were recent

(within the last year). Most respondents had learned about MSU’s decision to

 

grant domestic partner benefits from local newspapers, including the campus

paper, The State News (65%), and the local city paper, The Lansing State

 

M (22%). Most of the remaining people learned about the decision through
interpersonal channels, including friends (13%) or co-workers (14%). Most
respondents knew that benefits had been extended to faculty (94.5%), but many
did not know that the benefits were not extended to undergraduate students’
families. A little less than half, or 41.3%, of the respondents who knew MSU
extended benefits to domestic partners were aware that the benefits were not
extended to undergraduate students.
Opinions

Actual opinions. Opinions about domestic partner benefits included people
who were highly opposed (6.5%; N=11), opposed (13.6%; N=23), neutral (24.9%;
N=42), in favor (37.3%; N=63), highly in favor (11.8%; N=20), or didn’t care

(5.9%; N=10). Those who didn’t care were later collapsed with those that were

55

neutral in opinion. On this Likert-type scale which ranged from 1=highly opposed
to 5=highly in favor, the mean was a 3.36 with a standard deviation of 1.09.
Regardless of university affiliation, all mean opinions fell between neutral and in
favor, and were not significantly different from each other. These means are
reported in Table 2. In addition, self-reports indicate that opinions have been
stable. When asked if their opinion about domestic partner benefits had changed
at any time, 88.4% of respondents indicated that It had not.

Perceived opinions. The means for respondents’ perceptions of other

groups’ opinions were also between neutral and in favor for undergraduate and

 

graduate students, faculty, and staff (see Table 2). Administrators were
perceived to be less favorable, although in reality this belief was unwarranted. In
addition, the average person in Michigan was believed to be opposed to MSU
granting domestic partner benefits, although actual numbers are not known.
However, t-tests revealed some differences in people’s perception of what
other groups thought. The perception that Michigan citizens would be less
favorable was statistically different from all of the others. This mean was
considerably lower than the means for other groups. The perception was that
opinions of undergraduates, faculty, and staff were not different from each other,

and that graduate students were more in favor than all other groups.

56

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Opinions and Perceptions of Others’

Opinions by Affiliation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actual Opinion Perceived Opinion*
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Undergraduate Students 3.26 (1.08) 3.38“ (0.80)
Graduate Students" 3.49 (0.99) 3.77“ (0.56)
Faculty 3.46 (1.04) 335° (0.84)
Staff 3.24 (1.26) 316° (0.89)
Administrators 3.35 (1.17) 2.91b (0.86)
Michigan Citizens Unknown 2.24a (0.66) ' ‘5

 

 

 

 

* Different letters imply significant difference between perceived opinion means
(p<.05).

** The groups that appear in italics, graduate students and administrators, are
the ones where actual means are statistically different from perceived means

(p<.000).

Actual versus perceived opinions. The trend was that respondents slightly
overestimated how favorable students were, but underestimated how favorable
faculty, staff, and administrators were toward MSU granting domestic partner
benefits as reported in Figure 4 below. In only two cases were the means of the
actual opinions and of the perceptions of others’ opinions different. Although still
favorable, actual graduate student opinion was significantly less favorable than

the perception of their opinion (t=5.525; p<.000). Administrators were perceived

57

to be on the side of opposed, but in reality were on the side of in-favor of granting
domestic partner benefits (t=-5.694; p<.000). In addition, correlations between
one’s own opinion and the perception of other’s opinions were extremely low.
When asked what most people in each affiliated group thought (faculty, staff,
etc.), many respondents stated that they had no idea what others thought as a
whole. The only case where there seemed to be a slight trend of pluralistic
ignorance was in the case of administrator’s perceptions of other administrators,
faculty and staff where the correlations between individual opinions and the

perceptions of others’ opinions ranged from .452 to .730. There was no

 

relationship found with student opinions. The sample sizes in these subgroups
were extremely low, and therefore, these findings should be interpreted with

caufion.

Figure 4: Actual and Perceived Opinions by Affiliation

Highly in
Favor

4.5 ,
4 -l 3.77

3.26 3.38 3.49 3.46 335

3-5 1 3'24 3.16

3-
2.5~
23
1.5—
1____

  

2.91

Opinion

2.28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fifi‘ ..__T___

undergiads Giads 5‘3“ Facuwadm‘tristia‘ms M10093“

Hi hl O osed
g y pp Affiliation

 

 

 

llActua' Uterceivsdl

58

 

 

Media use of poll respondents. When asked which newspapers they read
at least once per week, respondents indicated the State News (57.4%), the
Lansing State Journal (54.4%), the Detroit Free Press (16%), and the M
Nfls (8.9%). When asked which types of television stations they watched most
frequently, respondents indicated network television (53.6%), cable television
(34.9%), and public broadcasting (12.7%).

Content Analvsis of Newspaper Results

General Information. All news articles and features were obtained from
1992 through 1997. In 1992, the University-Wide Task Force on Lesbian and
Gay Issues published their report recommending the University adopt domestic
partner benefits. On January 1, 1998, implementation began of domestic partner
benefits for same sex couples. Only news and feature stories were included in
the analysis. In total, 51 articles were located. Of these, 34 were from the Shite
News, nine from the Lansing State Journal, seven from the Detroit Free Press,
and one from the Detroit News. In addition, the number of articles per year varied
(see Figure 5). In 1992, three articles appeared. In 1994, four appeared. In 1995,
there were 15 articles. In 1996 there were six, and in 1997, there were 23
articles. Of these articles, 56.9% were front-page stories, and 19.6% included
photographs. Nearly one half of these stories (49%) appeared within one week
before or after a Board of Trustees meeting in which domestic partner benefits

were considered.

59

 

 

 

Figure 5: Number of News Articles, Stories and Features By Year
25 4

23
l
154?
10 I ' 5
o l l .

I

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Number of Articles

Year

Content. The themes of the articles varied. Thirteen announced an
upcoming board meeting, nine were reports of reactions to a board decision,
eight were about Michigan legislation, three were in relation to other universities
in the state granting benefits, and three were about MSU’s decision to pass
them. The Board of Trustees’ decision to postpone action was reported in one
article and the ruling about a staff member being denied a spousal ID card for her
partner also received one story. In addition eight other miscellaneous topics were
covered .

Media sources. Members of the MSU Board of Trustees were the most
frequently used sources. Approximately 43% of the stories cited at least one
board member. MSU President McPherson was also a common source, with
nearly 16% of the articles citing him. GLFSA President John Huebler was also
cited frequently (29% of the stories). In addition, other members of GLFSA, who

were identified as such, were also cited commonly (22% of the stories).

60

 

 

 

Arguments from the Media and Polling Data

In the poll, respondents were asked to provide reasons why they held the
opinion that they did about domestic partner benefits. They were also asked to
name the reasons that most people who were opposed would give to support
their opinions, and the reasons that most people in favor would give to support
their opinions. These arguments were coded using the same coding scheme that
was developed for the content analysis of media (see Tables 3 and 4 below). As
expected, morality was the most common argument in opposition to domestic

partner benefits, whereas equity was the most common argument given to

 

support domestic partner benefits. Rank orders were created for in-favor and
opposed arguments, and the resulting data were analyzed using Spearman’s
rank order correlation (see Table 5). Results were consistent for in-favor and
opposed arguments. Arguments from the poll (own and others’ reasons) were
significantly correlated (r=.875** for opposing arguments, r=.964** for in-favor
arguments, p<.001). Nevertheless, for both opposing and in-favor arguments,
neither category of arguments (own or others’ opinion) were significantly
correlated with the media’s rank ordering of arguments, and were actually fairly

low with correlations ranging from .179 though .515.

61

 

 

Table 3: Arguments in Opposition to Partner Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arguments Media Poll (own opinion) Poll (perceptions of

Rank (N) Rank (N) others’ opinions)
Rank (N)

Morality 1 (12) 1 (25) 1 (131)

Illegal 2 (9) 5 (3) 4 (29)

Cost 3 (8) 4 (6) 2 (43)

Anti-democratic 4 (3) 8 (1) 8 (22)

Not fair 4 (3) 2 (8) 3 (30)

Other 4 (3) 10 (0) 10 (0)

Don’t have to offer just 7 (2) 7 (2) 9 (20)

because others do

Shouldn’t encourage/let 8 (1) 8 (1) 6 (23)

them work elsewhere

Not part of MSU anti- 9 (0) 5 (3) 6 (23)

discrimination policy

People will lie 9 (0) 3 (7) 5 (27)

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Arguments in Favor of Partner Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arguments Media Poll (own Poll (perceptions of
Rank (N) opinion) others’ opinions)
Rank (N) Rank (N)
Equity/equality/fair 1 (25) 1 (90) 1 (138)
Cost 2 (16) 6 (8) 4 (35)
Others offer 3 (14) 7 (3) 6 (30) 7
Part of anti-discrimination 4 (11) 2 (18) 2 (53)
policy at MSU
Other 5 (8) 7 (0) 7 (0)
Retain/recruit 6 (6) 4 (9) 5 (34)
Entitled 7 (1) 3 (10) 3 (40) T

 

 

 

 

62

Table 5: Spearman Rank Order Correlations*

Media Poll (own) Poll (perceived)
Media 1.00 .179 .321
Poll (own) .269 1.00 .964**
Poll (other) .515 .875** 1.00

* The top of the matrix represents correlations for arguments in favor of domestic
partner benefits, and the bottom represents correlations for arguments against.
** p<.01

Summary of Key Findings

 

As was predicted, the poll data revealed that knowledge of the issue of
domestic partner benefits was quite low. Very few respondents (29%)
remembered that domestic partner benefits had been an issue that the MSU
Board of Trustees had recently acted upon. However, nearly two-thirds
responded that MSU had domestic partner benefits from a list of Michigan
universities. Less than half knew that benefits had not been extended to all of the
campus community.

Actual opinions by affiliation and the perception that other’s have of those
opinions were relatively close. In two groups the differences were statistically
significant. However, there were differences between what the expected opinion
of other groups were. For example, administrators were expected to be less
favorable than many other types of campus affiliates. In reality, there were no
differences between the various affiliates in their favor toward domestic partner

benefits. All were slightly above the mean, on the side of being in favor, of the

63

University granting domestic partner benefits. These results do not provide a
great deal of support for a false consensus effect that was predicted. This may
be due to the relative closeness and interaction that many of these groups have
on campus compared to other false consensus research that examined groups
that rarely to never have contact with each other.

Results from the poll revealed that morality and equity were the most
commonly given arguments against or for domestic partner benefits. Although
these were the most common arguments presented in the newspapers analyzed,

they did not dominate the other arguments in the same way. Arguments that

 

respondents had and those they expected others to have were highly correlated
(.964 and .875). The media content was not highly correlated with the arguments
given in the poll. This was not expected and suggests that respondents formed

their opinions from sources other than these newspapers or the media in general.

64

Chapter 5

INTERVIEW RESULTS

The results that follow are from the interview data. Response rate
information and demographics of interview respondents are provided, followed by
specific results comparing domestic partner benefits with parking for each section
of the interview protocol in the order in which the questions were asked. A copy
of the protocol can be found in Appendix A.

Response Rate Information

 

Eighty people were contacted either by telephone, email or both and
asked to participate in an interview about their opinions regarding domestic
partner benefits and parking. Fifty-two people agreed to be interviewed, 14
refused, and 14 never responded to requests. Overall, there was a 65%
participation rate. It was determined that two of the respondents were outliers
based on their reported levels of cognitive complexity and were excluded from
analyses. The outliers were one undergraduate and one graduate student. As a
result, all interview analyses are based on N=50.

Demographic Information

Argumentation interview respondents included staff (N=15), administrators
(N=14), faculty (N=16), graduate students (N=2), and undergraduate students
(N=3). The average age was approximately 46 years old (SD=9.84). Fifty-six
percent were female, 42% male, and the remaining 2% identified as

transgendered. The respondents were mostly Caucasian (N=45). The 90%

65

majority of whites is consistent with the University population as a whole.
Religious background varied. Forty-four percent identified as Protestant, 10%
Catholic, 6% Jewish, and 2% other. The remaining 38% did not identify with any
organized religion.

Level of education was atypical of the University population. Nearly half of
the respondents held a doctorate (46%), 2% had a medical degree, 10% were
currently pursuing a doctorate, 18% had a master’s degree, 4% had a law
degree, 2% were currently pursuing a master’s, 12% had a bachelor’s degree,

and 6% had some undergraduate education or were currently pursuing a

 

bachelor’s degree. In terms of field, 38% had a background in the social
sciences, 24% in the sciences, 22% in humanities, and 16% in a combination of
sciences, humanities, and social sciences.

Sexual orientation of respondents was not at all representative of the
University population as a whole, but is reasonable considering the large
numbers of domestic partner activists involved. Forty-four percent Identified as
heterosexual or straight, 50% lesbian or gay, and 6% bisexual.

All of the respondents that were eligible (94%) claimed to be registered
voters, while the remainder were non-US citizens. An overwhelming majority
identified as Democrats (60%), while 4% identified as Republicans, 10% as
independents and 6% were non-US citizens.

Analysis Information
Interview results were analyzed using several methods, including

descriptive analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, correlational analysis, and path

66

analysis. In addition, all open-ended items were coded by two raters: the author
and one other. lntercoder reliabilities were extremely high (most between .90 and
1.00 with a few falling as low as .86). All subsequent analyses are based on the
coding results of the non-author.
Activism Results

Based on responses to the interviews, 64% said that they would call
themselves activists. Forty-two percent identified as being active on gay issues
(40% pro and 2% con), 40% on liberal issues (not including gay-related issues),

and 2% on conservative issues (not including gay-related issues), and 30% on

 

issues that could not be clearly identified as liberal or conservative, such as
environmental activism. Although 64% identified as an activist, only 30%
expected that others who knew him/her would also label her/him an activist.
When asked in an open-ended question to define what an activist was,
66% included ideology or holding a strong or passionate belief about something,
18% included having to hold a leadership position in a community, and 98%
identified some kind of behavioral component. The behavioral component varied
dramatically from working behind the scenes to violence. The following

definitions taken from the interview transcripts illustrate some of the differences:

I guess the first thing that comes to mind is that they are active. They
actually do something about a stand or an issue that they feel is important
to them. That could be as simple as letter writing, or phoning, or

protesting, or letter bombs, going to the extreme.

67

Someone that works to better the situation of the community no matter
what it is. I think some people think of activism as being active resistance
to authority, but I don’t. I think you can be an activist and be a passive

resistor, or to work behind the scenes and not put yourself out at all.

Someone who is aware of what’s going on in the community and
perceives needs, and actually does things to investigate, to find out

additional information, to get other people interested, and to be some kind

 

of an agent of change whether they themselves directly cause change or

are convincing other people to work for change.

In addition, Kerpelman’s Activity Scale was administered to measure
actual activist behavior. Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test the 10
items related to actual behavior. Based on tests of internal consistency and
parallelism, items were eliminated and an index was formed. Six items were

retained (see Table 6).

68

Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for Kerpelman’s

Activity Scale Items (oc = .78; N=50)

 

 

Item Mean (SD) Factor
Loading
How many times in the past 3 years have you 2.08 (3.91) .44

organized a group to support, advocate or protest

a political or social issue?

 

How many times in the past 3 years have you 6.35 (5.22) .65
participated in a group supporting, advocating or

protesting a political or social issue?

 

How many times in the past 3 years have you 8.33 (3.98) .47

 

engaged in an extended argument with anyone

over a political or social issue?

 

Approximately how much time during the average 0.81 (1.48) .48
day do you spend trying to convince others to
support or protest a political or social issue?

(hours)

 

How many times in the past 3 years have you 6.20 (4.68) .87
written something (pamphlet, handout, email,
etc.) designed specifically to either inform or
convince other people concerning a political or

social issue?

 

 

During the past 3 years, how many times have 3.51 (3.68) .78
you participated in demonstrations, marches or

rallies?

 

 

 

 

It Is interesting to note that the correlations among the various
measurements of activism from self-reports (Self-Report), their perceptions of

whether others would call him/her an activist (Others), and the Kerpelman Scale

69

(Kerpelman), although correlated significantly, with the exception of others
perceptions with the scale, did not approach r=1.0 (see Table 7 below). This
finding is not novel and is consistent with studies looking at levels of political
participation. Key (1961) found that those who identify as being active in a group
to which they belong are “far less numerous than those who merely belong” (p.
504). This difference in identification can be explained, in part, based on the
open-ended responses probing why people consider themselves to be activists
or non-activists. In some cases, those who tested fairly high on the Kerpelman’s

activity scale did not consider themselves to be activists, either because of a

 

negative association with the word “activism” or more likely because they felt
they were not nearly as active or as publicly active as other people they knew.
Consequently, Kerpelman’s Scale is used in all subsequent analyses as the

measure of activism because it measures behavior and not perception per 56.

Table 7: Correlations Between Activism Measures

Kerpelman Self-Report Others
Kerpelman 1.00
Self-Report .465* 1.00
Others .279 345* 1.00

* p<.05

Verbal Aggression, Argumentativeness, and Cognitive Complexity
Confirmatory factor analyses were performed for the verbal aggression
scale and the argumentativeness scale (see Tables 8 and 9 below). Based on

tests of internal consistency and parallelism, items were eliminated and an index

70

for each scale was formed. In addition, four indices for cognitive complexity of
arguments were created for respondents’ own positions and alternative positions
on domestic partner benefits, and for respondents’ own and alternative positions
on parking. Cognitive complexity was a sum of the average length of a causal
chain and the total amount of integration between argument chains. Initially, it
was hoped that the total number of causal argument chains would also be
included in this index, but the correlations between this item and the others were

negligible.

Table 8: Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for Verbal

Aggression Items (oc = .67; N=50)

 

 

Item Mean* (SD) Factor
Loading
I am extremely careful to avoid attacking individuals’ 2.06 (1.17) .68

intelligence when l attack their idea.

 

I try to make people feel good about themselves 2.76 (1.12) .69

even when their ideas are stupid.

 

 

When I attack another person’s’ ideas, I try not to 1.98 (0.98) .53
damage their self-concepts.

 

 

 

*1 = rarely true, “5” = almost always true

71

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9: Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for

Argumentativeness Items (oc = .79; N=50)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Mean* (SD) Factor
Loading

Once I finish an argument I promise myself that I will 4.18 (1.12) .70

not get into another.

Arguing with a person creates more problems for me 3.64 (1.21) .67

than It solves.

When I finish arguing with someone I feel nervous 3.42 (1.14) .89

and upset.

I am happy when I keep an argument from 3.24 (1.15) .55

happening.

I consider an argument an exciting intellectual 3.24 (1.29) .50

challenge.

 

 

 

*1 = rare/y true, “5” = almost always true

Causal Theory. Justification, and Contradictory Positions

A vast majority of those interviewed were in favor of domestic partner

benefits. On a scale from strongly opposed=1 to strongly in favor=5, the mean

was 4.56 (SD=.97). When asked if they could remember when they began to

hold this view, 92% responded yes to domestic partner benefits and 98%

responded yes to parking. The majority of those asked about their memory of the

origin of their view on parking linked it to a specific event that they were able to

describe (60%), and 36% linked their view on domestic partner benefits to a

specific event.

72

 

 

Commitment of Beliefs. People strongly held their views, and the majority

did not think that they would be able to prove someone else wrong for either

issue. Strength of commitment regarding domestic partner benefits was even

more extreme than parking, as illustrated in Table 10.

Table 10: Ability to Be Proven Wrong or Prove Someone Else Wrong (N=50)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Partner Benefits Parking
Is there any fact or evidence, which if it 67% No 34% No
were true, would show your view to be 20% Maybe 17% Maybe
wrong? 13% Yes 49% Yes
Could someone prove that you were 82% No 28%No
wrong? 10% Maybe 17% Maybe
8% Yes 55% Yes
Would you be able to prove this person 60% No 33.3% No
(someone who disagreed with you) 19% Maybe 17.9% Maybe
wrong? 9% Yes 41% Yes

 

 

 

 

Path analysis results. An indirect effect was found for the impact of level of
activism on people’s abilities to make complex arguments (see Figures 4 and 5).
As expected, level of activism was found to be positively related to
argumentativeness and negatively related to verbal aggression. In addition,
argumentativeness was positively related to making complex arguments for one’s
own opinion, and both positively and directly related to making complex
arguments about an alternative position. Verbal aggression was found to be
negatively related to making complex arguments for one’s own position. These

data were consistent with these models for both domestic partner benefits and

73

for parking. The chi-square goodness of fit test using ordinary least squares
estimates was significant using both uncorrected and corrected (for error of
measurement) correlations. The path coefficients were stronger for the path
model related to domestic partner benefits than for parking. Most of the path
coefficients were moderate in strength even for the uncorrected model ranging

from 8:18 to r=-.40. The corrected path coefficients ranged from B=-.25 to r=.78.

The corrected coefficients are represented in parentheses in Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 6: Path Model for Ability to Argue about Domestic Partner Benefits

(-.55) Verbal (-.51)
- .40 Aggression - .29 (. 78)
Activism / \ Own ——> Alternative
Position Position
(37) 29\ /8 (30>
Argumentativeness
98(8) = 1.77 . p>.05 x2'(s) = .89 , p>.05

74

 

Figure 7: Path Model for Ability to Argue about Parking on Campus

(-.43) Verbal (—.39)
-.31 Aggression -.25 (.51)
\ .30
Activism Own —-—-> Alternative
Position Position
.28 \ /;6
(.36) (.38)
Argumentativeness
98(5) = 3.43 , p>.05 38(3) = 1.52 , p>.05

Instrumental Reasoning

Respondents had various beliefs about whether or not there were viable
solutions to the issues of domestic partner benefits and parking that would satisfy
everyone. For domestic partner benefits, 62.5% of the respondents felt it was
impossible, 22.9% thought it might be possible, and 14.6% felt it was possible.
When pushed for a solution as to what might be agreeable to everyone, very few
could generate a response. The most common solution given was a sort of
“cafeteria plan” in which employees would be provided a certain number of
dollars toward insuring themselves and others of their choice.

Regarding the issue of parking, 50% thought it would be impossible to

satisfy everyone, 38% felt it might be possible, and 12% felt it would definitely be

75

possible. Again, very few were able to suggest solutions, but the most common
solution given was a vastly improved, low-cost, public transportation system.
Epistomological Reasoning

Again, the certainty of their views, the certainty of their views compared to
an expert, the likelihood of reconsidering their positions, their perception of the
importance of the issues, and their knowledge of the issues differed depending
on the issue. Table 11 below illustrates the results of the epistomological
reasoning questions. Some questions were coded on Likert-type scales from
low=1 to high=5. Other questions solicited yes or no responses.
Perceptions of Media Coverage

Nearly 100% of the interview participants felt that the media had covered
the issues of domestic partner benefits and parking at MSU specifically (98% for

domestic partner benefits and 96% for parking). The State News (66% for

 

domestic partner benefits and 80% for parking) and the Lansing State Journal

 

(61 % for both domestic partner benefits and parking) were the most commonly
identified sources of media attention to these issues.

The amount of attention given was considered to be either too little (26%
for domestic partner benefits and 33% for parking), about right (55% for domestic
partner benefits and 50% for parking), too much (9% for domestic partner
benefits and 14% for parking), or depended on the media source (11% for
domestic partner benefits and 2% for parking). About 49% of the respondents felt
that the media attention for domestic partner benefits had been objective and

balanced compared with 61% for parking. Approximately 77% of the respondents

76

 

Table 11: Comparisons of Responses Related to Epistemological Reasoning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N=50)

Question Partner Benefits Parking

How sure are you (1) that MSU’s policy on Mean= 4.13 Mean=3.36

partner benefits is in the best interests of MSU SD= .98 SD=1.14

or (2) about what causes parking problems on

campus?

Are there any experts on this issue? 14% No 4% No
17% Maybe 8% Maybe
69% Yes 88% Yes

How sure are you of your view compared to Mean=4.03 Mean=3.14

an expert? SD=.88 SD=.97

Could more than one point of view be right? 16% No 2% No
54% Maybe/ 16% Maybe
Right To Them 82% Yes
30% Yes

Is there anyone who could change your mind 78% No 12% No

on your position? 12% Maybe 16% Maybe
10% Yes 72% Yes

Is there anyone you respect who, if s/he 72% No 46% No

changed his/her mind on this issue, it would 11% Maybe 6% Maybe

cause you to reconsider? 17% Yes 48% Yes

How much would you say you know about this Mean=4.25 Mean=2.14

topic compared to the average person? SD=.69 SD=.97

How important is this issue to MSU? Mean=3.61 Mean=3.80
SD=1.34 SD=.99

How important is this issue to you personally? Mean=4.06 Mean=2.80
SD=1.13 SD=1.10

 

 

 

77

 

 

felt the coverage they had seen or read had not been thorough for both domestic
partner benefits and for parking. The majority felt that the media coverage had
been timely (69% for domestic partner benefits and 59% for parking).

In terms of remembering specific arguments that had been presented in
the media regarding these issues, about 56% recalled specific arguments
surrounding domestic partner benefits and 33% recalled specific arguments
surrounding parking on campus.

Summary of Key Findings

Finding activists working against the passage of domestic partner benefits
proved to be extremely difficult. Few were listed in archival records and those
that spoke out publicly were not involved in an organized effort. This lack of an
organized countermovement is atypical of social issues. It may be that those who
were opposed were not comfortable speaking out and they had difficulty in
finding each other to organize a collective effort. Some of those interviewed
suggested that the climate had shifted, making it uncomfortable for those
opposed to speak publicly. It was clear from the poll that there were people
opposed to this effort. However, the difficulty in finding activists against domestic
partner benefits limited the inclusion of those with opposing viewpoints in the
argumentation interviews and made testing some of the hypotheses impossible.
For example, it was impossible to test whether or not those working toward
changing the status quo were better at generating alternative arguments than

those who were fighting to maintain the status quo.

78

 

 

Another interesting finding from the analysis of the argumentation
interviews was the social comparison on the part of activists choosing whether or
not to define themselves that way based on their peer groups. Despite testing
high on Kerpelman's Activity Scale, many still did not see themselves as activists
because compared to their peers, they felt they did not qualify. This was also
reflected in the vast range of definitions participants provided for activism. In
some cases, for example, if a subject’s definition of activism_included public
demonstrations, and s/he did not participate in any in the past few years, the

subject excluded her or himself as an activist.

 

Relationships between activism, verbal aggression, and cognitive
complexity were found1 and in the expected directions. However, not all of the
relationships were direct. In addition, as stated earlier, activism and verbal
aggression were found to be negatively related which was not at all expected.
However, the most parsimonious explanation is that it is not advantageous for an
activist to be verbally aggressive and still expect to get the time and attention of
decision makers. This strategy may help get media attention, but is likely to
dissuade a policy maker from spending time with the activist. In addition, the idea
that activism is positively related to activists’ ability to make complex arguments
for their own position and for an alternative one was supported. This held for both
issues, suggesting that the ability to argue is a transferable skill.

Many interview participants also felt that although they held their own

views very strongly about domestic partner benefits, that they could not change

 

another's opinions about this topic. This was consistent with the data from the

79

history interviews. The interviews revealed a change in strategy on the part of
GLFSA between 1995 and 1997 from efforts to elicit media attention and to gain
public support to efforts to sway policy makers. In addition, GLFSA was careful to
continue to work with only those policy makers who were either already in

support or were vacillating or undecided on the issue.

80

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6

DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS

There are many implications of this study, both theoretical and practical.
As with all studies, there are also limitations. Findings from this study have
implications for issues management, public opinion, and framing. In addition,
there are implications for literature related to argumentation. This chapter
examines implications in those areas and discusses implications of this study for

activists. First, however, limitations are also discussed.

 

Limitations

ls thought and reasoning supreme? This study examined levels of thought
based on people’s abilities to construct causal arguments by linking theory and
evidence. There are quite likely to be other equally valid ways of conceptualizing
thought. This study is limited in that it examined people’s abilities to construct
arguments and to voice them. It may be that the thoughts people had were not
well articulated, but that the thought was much more complex than that which
was verbalized (Olson & Torrance, 1996). However, in terms of winning over
politicians and judicial bodies, the ability to articulate arguments is essential.
Anderson and Dovre (1968) note that “argumentation emphasizes the use of
reasoned discourse and provides a method to resolve conflicts, secure decisions,
and affect attitude and behavior by rational analysis and logical appeal” (p. 3).
Similarly, Mills (1968, p. 2) states that argumentation is an essential tenet of

social order in that individuals will participate in making decisions if there is to be

81

self-government and democracy, so long as an argument is sufficiently well
informed. Mills (1968) believes well-constructed arguments and debates can
facilitate the process of solving social problems. In addition, O’Keefe (1997), in a
meta-analysis of explicitness, found that more explicit arguments were more
persuasive.

The methods for testing individuals’ abilities to construct arguments were
also biased toward those who reasoned by causal argument rather than simply
by sign or analogy. Reasoning by sign involves giving reasons for which a

proposition is true without attempting to explain why it is true. This is often the

 

case with reasoning by analogy. However, reasoning by causal argument must
include an explanation for why the proposition is true in addition to providing
evidence or examples. The use of causal arguments is likely to result in more
integration between arguments and more argument chains. For the purposes of
this study, those were the key variables in determining complex arguments.
However, in most cases, causal arguments are considered to be superior to
other types of arguments when they are used in a debate (McBurney & Mills,
1968)

It should also be pointed out that the sample of activists is not
representative of the population of activists on a number of demographic
characteristics such as political affiliation and level of education, which were
clearly skewed in this study. It will be important in future studies to determine if

the findings would be similar for other populations and for other issues.

82

The argumentation interviews and the public opinion poll were also limited
in that they were not longitudinal. A future study should examine how activists’
abilities to argue change over time. The ability may be gained with past activism
and remain consistent if there is a decrease in activism or be positively correlated
with a given level of activism over time. Similarly, it would be Interesting to know
how public opinion changed with this social issue and how it corresponded with
public activism and media content over the life of the issue. Lippman (1922, p.
29) wrote “The pictures inside the heads of these human beings, the pictures of

themselves, of others, of their needs, purposes, and relationship, are their public

 

opinions.” These pictures have been found to form in part as a result of media
content. However, when the MSU Board of Trustees voted on the issue of
domestic partner benefits the second time, the amount of coverage had been
much less because the “publicness” of this issue, of in-your—face and public
strategies on the part of GLFSA, was less. It would have been interesting to have
a better understanding of how this altered the “pictures in people’s heads” or the
issue salience.
Issues Management, Public Opinion, and Framing Findings

Often, media researchers and social movement theorists focus on the
presence of media attention and media content as useful in advocating and
advancing a social issue (e.g. Gamson & Wolfsfeld, 1993; Kielb0wicz & Scherer,
1986; Snow & Benford, 1988; Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986;
Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1980). Rupp and Taylor (1987) and Taylor (1989)

wrote of the women’s movement as being in a period of abeyance between the

83

1930’s and the 1950’s. However, this abeyance may have been a period of fewer
public displays and decreased media attention. Rupp and Taylor (1987) and
Taylor (1989) felt it was still a period of activism and may have represented a
strategic shift in tactics. The period between 1995 and 1997 could also be
characterized for domestic partner benefits at MSU as a period of a movement in
abeyance. The movement was not dormant, despite the lack of media attention
and public display. GLFSA was just as active but strategically shifted its
approach. GLFSA leadership believed, and was advised, that media attention

was not in their best interests. This is counter to previous studies that suggest

 

that media attention helps in influencing policy decisions (e.g. Protess, Cook,
Doppelt, Ettema, et al., 1991; Protess & McCombs, 1991). Studies need to be
conducted to understand under what conditions media attention helps or hinders
an issue being advanced. Similarly, the lack of media attention should not signal
the lack of a movement or the lack of interest in an issue. Downs (1972)
describes issues as going through attention cycles that represent drops in media
attention that may reflect a decline in interest. However, the lack of media
attention may be strategic and not represent a drop in attention or interest on the
part of activist groups. A decline in media coverage may lead to a lack of issue
salience among the general public, but not necessarily a lack of activity of a
social movement or of issue salience for policy decision makers. Media attention
is also not always in the best interests of a group advocating an issue because

the media tend to dichotomize public issues instead of representing the breadth

84

of an issue (Condit, 1994; Tuchman, 1978). This can have the effect of making
people believe that they are further apart than they actually are on some issues.
The finding that arguments portrayed in the media are not significantly
correlated with the poll arguments is particularly striking, because it is not
consistent with recent literature that suggests that framing is the second level of
agenda—setting and works in the same way (e.g. McCombs, 1992; McCombs,
Shaw, & Weaver, 1997). This idea has recently been explored by the pioneers of
the agenda-setting hypothesis, McCombs and Shaw, and their colleague, David

Weaver (1997), in an edited volume largely devoted to this issue. That is, in

 

agenda-setting research, the guiding hypothesis is that the rank ordering of
issues (how many times something get covered) within the media is consistent
with the rank order of how important the public view that issue. However, the lack
of a significant correlation between media data and poll data for these data does
not support this idea. This suggests that one of the following may be the case: (1)
this is not an issue for which people look to the mass media to form their opinion,
(2) that people are looking to media other than newspapers to draw their opinion,
or (3) that framing is not a second level of agenda-setting, but an independent
factor. Further research should explore these alternative explanations.
Argumentation Findings

Group norms and ideas and reasoning are not uniform (Key, 1961). These
data support that conclusion. Interviewees had very different ideas about why
benefits should or should not be given, to whom they should be given, and how

they should be implemented. The key to a group’s success may be managing to

85

deal with these differences in order to work toward a common solution regardless
of reasoning. This is not to say that the differences weren’t important or did not
come up in debate. For example, many would have preferred that domestic
partner benefits pass for both same sex and opposite sex partners because that
was more equitable. Others felt that every person should be given a flat amount
of money toward benefits and allowed to divide them up and provide them to
whomever they wished because this was the only fair thing for those who were
single and without children. However, despite the differences, group conflict did
not drastically impede the effort on the part of the GLFSA membership to get
benefits passed. A future study should also examine why some groups can
negotiate these differences successfully and work toward a common goal while
others fall apart.

The interview data are consistent with Kuhn’s (1991) assumption that
some people actually do make very complex arguments, rather than Billig’s
(1996) suggestion that people are unskilled at making arguments. Further, these
data support the notion that it is more likely that either thought and/or practice,
and not age per se, contributes to the ability to make complex arguments. The
interview data were also consonant with the idea that activism, argumentation,
and verbal aggression all impact the ability to create complex arguments.
However, a direct relationship between activism and the ability to create complex
arguments is not supported here. Also not supported was the idea that activism
was unrelated to verbal aggression as originally thought. However, this finding

actually seems extremely reasonable when you consider how verbal aggression

86

typically affects dialogic or other more public arguments. When it is apparent that
the speaker cares little about your opinion or is extremely attacking or harsh in
presenting an argument, atypical reaction from the listener is to attack back, to
not listen, to discount the speaker and perhaps to even flee from the situation.
None of these responses are advantageous to the activist who needs the listener
to be open to her or his arguments in order to gain support.
Arguments versus Opportunities

Are activists any more successful in affecting policy outcomes because
they make better arguments, or is their success due largely to changes in what
political process theorists would call “political opportunity structures” or key
political events or changes that allow activists and others more entry into
influencing the system (e.g. Jenkins & Perrow, 1977; McAdam, McCarthy, &
Zald, 1996; Tilly, 1978; Tarrow, 1983)? Key (1961, p. 531) suggests that “group
success may be governed more by the general balance of partisan strength than
by the results of group endeavors to win friends in the mass public.” There is little
doubt that the change in the balance of partisanship between November 1995
and September 1997 of the MSU Board of Trustees facilitated the decision to
grant domestic partner benefits. Newly elected board member Joel Ferguson
publicly stated in his election platform that he would support granting these
benefits. Ferguson, a Democrat, had responded to a survey of all candidates and
their stances on gay issues, including this one, conducted by Lansing Area
Human Rights (LAHR). However, like other candidates who were asked,

Ferguson could have chosen not to respond. Not all Democrats back this issue,

87

 

 

which was supported by the polling data, and there is no clear party line on this
issue. For example, when the MSU Board of Trustees was asked by the m
M in April 1997, Democrats Joel Ferguson, Dorothy Gonzales and Colleen
McNamara supported this issue, Republicans Don Nugent and Jack Shingleton
opposed them, Democrats Bob Weiss and Bob Traxler were undecided, and the
remaining Republican, Dee Cook, provided no comment (Machniak, 1997).
Domestic partner benefits has by no means been a platform issue of the
Democratic Party. However, there is little doubt that Democrats support this issue

more frequently than Republicans do, not just in Michigan but around the United

 

States. Partisanship, and a change in the political opportunity structure, are not
enough to account for the change. Consider, for example, that fifteen years ago
this would never have been an issue raised by either political party. Somehow,
this had to become an issue and people had to be convinced it was a valid one,
that there was an inequity, and that to alleviate the inequity, domestic partner
benefits needed to be passed. Arguments and argumentation played a key role
in the issue formation and in the management of this issue by GLFSA and similar
organizations around the country. There were other changes in the political
opportunity structure as well. Many additional universities and employers around
the country had passed these benefits between the board votes of 1995 and
1997, including the University of Michigan, another state-funded university.
These additional employers provided more evidence that passing these benefits
would not be costly, would not bankrupt the system, that donors would not pull

away, that not everyone would lie and say they were gay in order to get benefits

88

for friends or roommates. Many of these arguments had been commonly given
before 1995 by those opposed, but they could not be supported by the evidence.
Proponents were able to systematically erode many of the opposition’s
arguments (Condit & Condit, 1992).

If it is arguments that allow political changes to occur, or at least help in
this process, this suggests that teaching activists how to make arguments might
make them more powerful in influencing social processes. However, it is also
unknown whether or not certain kinds of arguments might be more persuasive
than others. Further research is needed in this area.

More research is clearly needed in the area of the ability of publics, such
as social movements, to influence the political process, media, and public
opinion. Better understanding and empirical support is needed to determine
under what conditions activist groups need to shift their campaigns to a different
target audience. Replication of this research is also needed to determine whether
the effects found here are issue-specific, and whether they can be found at
various levels of politics, from local to international politics.

Implications for Activists

These data suggest several implications for activists. Activism was found
to be related to the ability to make arguments. This finding supports Kuhn’s
(1991) assertion that practice is key. Argumentation is something that can be
learned. Therefore, one implication is that those wishing to engage in activism
should consider practicing on each other and to consider formal training in

argumentation. This may shorten the time frame for becoming a skilled and more

89

 

effective arguer. Activists also need to keep in mind that some arguments are
easier to counter than others. It is much easier to counter a practical argument,
such as a policy being too expensive to implement, than a moral argument based
on religious teachings. Those with deeply held religious beliefs are not likely to
be persuaded. A number of people who participated in the argumentation
interviews felt that no one could convince them they were wrong. Therefore,
another implication of this study is to spend resources countering practical
arguments and direct attention to those who either already agree with you or who
have not decided their stance on an issue. Accept that some people will never
have their opinions changed.

The ability to be flexible was another important strategy used by GLFSA
activists. When one plan didn’t work, they shifted their attention to another. For
example, when attempts to influence the ADJB were unsuccessful, GLFSA
turned its attention to the Board of Trustees. GLFSA always had a plan, but
shifted strategies, arguments, and attention toward new targets as needed.

Interorganizational linkages are important to develop and to maintain. In
the case of GLFSA these linkages became more or less important at various
stages. For example, linkages to the union officials and to members of the
University Faculty Affairs Committee were important in garnering official support
from these groups at critical times.

Perhaps the most interesting implications of this study are that media
attention and favorable public opinion are not always needed. Ultimately, policy

makers are the most important target of influence. An implication from this

90

current study for activist groups trying to decide how to best involve the media is
that no media involvement is sometimes a better choice. Similarly, eliciting public
involvement is extremely time-consuming and may not be necessary. The better
use of time may be to target policy makers directly first and then decide what
pressure is needed, if any, from what other sources, to most favorably influence
decision making. Using the media may only be a good idea if the decision
making body opposes the activist groups’ proposed policies.

Another implication for activists is that compromise is often necessary. On
a personal level, many were opposed to misleading the media prior to the
September 1997 Board of Trustees’ meeting. In addition, the final policy adopted
by the University did not extend benefits to all graduate students, to any
undergraduates, or to opposite sex domestic partners, which many would like to
have seen included.

On a final note, an implication for activists is to expect that the experience
of being an activist is likely to result in personal change that is not always seen
as completely positive. For example, Brent Bilodeau, one of the activists who
participated in a history interview for this study, noted that having been involved
with this issue of domestic partner benefits and with efforts by GLFSA to change
this policy at MSU led him to “feel like I was personally changed forever”. He
went on to say that, “I think we all were [changed]. I don’t think, anybody who
went through what we went through in ’95... you just can’t go through something
like that and be the same person afterwards” (personal communication, March

18, 1998). Bilodeau expressed that as a result of this meeting, he began to label

91

 

 

himself as an activist and to help others, particularly students, to become
activists. However, he also expressed the belief that the experience made him

more skeptical as a person.

92

APPENDICES

93

APPENDIX A

INSTRUMENTS

Argumentation Interview Protocol

After participant signs the consent form and we turn on the audio recorder, we

begin.

ACTIVISM IN GENERAL

Let me first ask you in general about activism.

1) In your mind, what is an activist?

2) Currently, would you call yourself an activist? Yes No

2a) In general or on specific issues?

2b) On what issues?

26) For each, for how long and when were you involved?

3) Currently, would other people who know you call you an activist? Yes No

3a) Why?

4) ( if no to #2) At any time in the past, would you have called yourself an
activist? Yes No

(if yes to #2) At any in the past, would you have called yourself an activist for

any issue other than the ones you already mentioned? Yes No

4a) In general or on specific issues?

4b) On what issues?

94

4c) For each, for how long and when were you involved?
5) At any time in the past, would other people who would have know you have
called you an activist? Yes No

5b) why?

PARTNER BENEFITS INTERVIEW

CAUSAL THEORY AND JUSTIFICATION

1. Are you for or against partner benefits being offered at MSU to employees who
are gay or lesbian?

1a. (Probe, when subject completes initial response) How strongly do you hold
it?

2. For what reasons do you hold that position?

3. How do you know this supports your position?

3a. (Probe, if necessary) Just to be sure I understand, can you explain exactly
how your arguments support your position?

4. If you were trying to convince someone else that your view is right what
evidence [verbal emphasis] would you give to try to show this?

4a. (Probe, if necessary) Can you be very specific, and tell me some particular
facts that you could mention to try to convince the person?

5. Is there anything further you could say to help show that what you’ve said is
correct?

6. Can you remember when you began to hold this view?

95

63. (If yes) Can you remember what it was that led you to believe what you do?

CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS

1. Suppose now that someone disagreed with your view. What might they say to
try to convince you that you were wrong?

2. What evidence might this person give to try to convince you that you were
wrong?

2a. (Probe, if necessary) Just to be sure I understand, can you explain exactly

how they would think this would show that you were wrong?

 

2b. (Probe, if necessary) In order to support his/her view, what arguments might
this person give?

3. (If not already indicated) Is there any fact or evidence which, if it were true,
would show your view to be wrong?

4. Could someone prove that you were wrong?

4a. (If yes) How?

5. (Omit if alternative theory already generated) A person like we’ve been talking
about whose view is very different from yours-- what might s/he say is
their view?

6. (Include if no alternative theory is generated) How would you respond? What
would you say to try to convince them?

6a. (Probe, if necessary) Just to be sure I understand, can you explain exactly
how this would show the person was wrong?

7. Would you be able to prove this person wrong?

96

7a. (If yes) How?
8. (If not already indicated) What could you say to show that your own view is the
correct one?

9. Describe what people on the other side of this issue are like.

INSTRUMENTAL REASONING

1. Could a policy be developed at MSU that would satisfy both those who favor
and those who oppose domestic partner benefits?

1a. (If not already indicated) If so, what is it?

1b. (If no) Why?

EPISTEMOLOGICAL REASONING

1. How sure are you that MSU’s policy on partner benefits is in the best interests
of MSU?

2. Are there any experts on this issue?

2a. Who are they?

2b. How sure are you of your view, compared to an expert?

3. Is more than one point of view possible regarding partner benefits at MSU?

4. (If yes) Could more than one point of view be right?

5. Is there any one who could change your mind about your position?

5a.(lf yes) Who?

6. Is there anyone you respect who, if s/he changed his/her mind on this issue,

would cause you to reconsider?

97

 

6a. (If yes) Who?

7. How much would you say you know about this topic, compared to the average
person?

8. How important is this issue to Michigan State University?

9. How important is this topic to society as a whole?

10. How important is this topic to you personally?

MEDIA QUESTIONS

Let me ask you a few questions about the media coverage of this issue.

1. Have the media covered this issue?

1a. (If yes) When?

1b. (If yes) Which media?

2. Have they given this issue the right amount of attention, too much or too little
aflenfion?

2a. Why?

3. Has the attention been objective and balanced?

3a.VVhy?

4. Did media coverage answer all questions about this issue?

4a. Was it thorough?

4b.VVhy?

5. Do you think media coverage about this issue has been timely?

6. What arguments did the media provide for each sides’ view?

98

 

Before we do the second part of the interview, why don ’t you take a couple of
minutes and fill out these scales. (Give them: verbal aggression,

argumentativeness, and activism scales)

PARKING INTERVIEW

CAUSAL THEORY AND JUSTIFICATION

1. What causes parking problems on MSU’s campus?

1a. (Probe, when subject completes initial response) Anything else?

2. (If multiple cases mentioned) Which of these would you say is the major cause
of parking problems on campus?

3. How do you know this is the cause?

3a. (Probe, if necessary) Just to be sure I understand, can you explain exactly

how this shows that this is the cause.

4. If you were trying to convince someone else that your view [that this is the
cause] is right what evidence [verbal emphasis] would you give to try to
show this?

4a. (Probe, if necessary) Can you be very specific, and tell me some particular
facts that your could mention to try to convince the person?

5. Is there anything further you could say to help show that what you’ve said is
correct?

6. Is there anything someone could say or do to prove that this is what causes

parking problems on campus?

99

 

7. Can you remember when you began to hold this view?
7a. (If yes) Can you remember what it was that led you to believe that this is the

cause?

CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS

1. Suppose now that someone disagreed with your view that this is the cause of
parking problems at MSU. What might they say to show that you were
wrong?

2. What evidence might this person give to try to show that you were wrong?

 

23. (Probe, if necessary) Just to be sure I understand, can you explain exactly
how this would show that you were wrong?

2b. (Probe, if necessary) In order to support his/her view, what arguments might
this person give?

3. (If not already indicated) Is there any fact or evidence which, if it were true,
would show your view to be wrong?

4. Could someone prove that you were wrong?

43. (If yes) How?

5. (Omit if alternative theory already generated) A person like we’ve been talking
about whose view is very different from yours--what might s/he say is the
major cause?

6. What could you say to show that this other person was wrong?

6a. (Probe, if necessary) Just to be sure I understand, can you explain exactly

how this would show the person was wrong?

100

7. Would you be able to prove this person wrong?

7a. (If yes) How?

8. (If not already indicated) What could you say to show that our own view is the
correct one?

9. Describe what people on the other side of this issue are like.

INSTRUMENTAL REASONING

1. Is there any one important thing which, if it could be done, would alleviate the
parking problem and satisfy everyone?

1a. (If yes) If so, what is it?

1b. (If no) Why?

2. Why would this lessen it?

EPISTEMOLOGICAL REASONING

1. How sure are you about what causes parking problems on the MSU campus?

2. Are there any experts on this issue?

2a. Who are they?

2b. How sure are you of your view, compared to an expert?

2c. Would it be possible for experts to find out for sure the cause, if they studied
this problem carefully enough?

3. Is more than one point of view possible regarding what causes parking
problems on MSU’s campus?

4. (If yes) Could more than one point of view be right?

101

5. Is there any one who could change your mind about your position?

5a.( If yes) Who?

6. Is there anyone you respect who, if s/he changed his/her mind on this issue,
would cause you to reconsider?

6a. (If yes) Who?

7. How much would you say you know about this topic, compared to the average
person at MSU?

8. How important is this issue to Michigan State University?

9. How important is this topic to you personally?

 

MEDIA QUESTIONS

Let me ask you a few questions about the media coverage of this issue.

1. Have the media covered this issue?

1a. (If yes) When?

1b. (If yes) Which media?

2. Have they given this issue the right amount of attention, too much or too little
afienfion?

2a.VVhy?

3. Has the attention been objective and balanced?

36.VVhy?

4. Did media coverage answer all questions about this issue?

4a. Was it thorough?

4b.VVhy?

102

5. Do you think media coverage about this issue has been timely?

6. What arguments did the media provide for each sides’ view?

DEMOGRAPHICS

Let me end by asking you a few quick demographic questions.

1. Are you a staff member, administrator, faculty, graduate student or
undergraduate student at MSU?)

1a. (If they indicated they were staff) which union do they belong to?

2. What year were you born?

3. Are you male or female? (Fill in for them)

4. What is your race or ethnicity?

5. With what religion, if any, do you identify?

6. What is your sexual orientation?

7. What is the highest level of education you have finished?

8. Are you a registered voter? Yes No

8a. (If yes) Which political party are you affiliated with?

(T urn Tape Recorder Off)

Thank you very much for your time. After having participated in this interview do

you have any ideas for us of other people we should speak to?

(If yes) Can we use your name?

Here is my card. Please feel free to contact XXX in the Department of

Communication if you have any questions later about this study. Thanks again.

103

 

Kerpelman’s Activity Scale

This is a survey for research purposes only, and as such, there are no right or
wrong answers. We are seeking to measure your experiences and expectations
concerning certain general issues. Please read each question carefully and
indicate how often each statement is true for you personally by placing the
appropriate number in the blank to the right of the statement that is closest to
your actual experiences and expectations. In the following questions the word

“issues” refers solely to broad political or social issues on or off the Michigan

 

State University campus. A broad social issue is one that has the potential to I
impact policy decisions and/or individuals’ behavior at the campus, local, state,

federal or global level.

1) How many times in the past 3 years have you organized a group to support,

advocate or protest a political or social issue?

 

2) How many times in the past 3 years have you led, or directly assisted in
leading, an already organized group supporting, advocating or protesting a

political or social issue?

 

3) How many times in the past 3 years have you participated in a group

supporting, advocating or protesting a political or social issue?

 

4) How many times in the past 3 years have you engaged in an extended

argument with anyone over a political or social issue?

 

5) Approximately how much time during the average day do you spend trying to

convince others to support or protest a political or social issue?

 

104

6) How many times in the past 3 years have you written something (pamphlet,
handout, email, etc.) designed specifically to either inform or convince other

people concerning a political or social issue?

 

7) How much time during the average day do you spend reading , watching or
listening to news, opinions, editorials, or factual information on political or social
issues?

8) How many times in an average month do you go to hear scheduled speakers

talking about political or social issues?

 

9) During the past 3 years, how many times have you participated in

 

demonstrations, marches or rallies?

 

10) During the past 3 years, how many times have you contributed money to a

social or political cause?

 

Imagine yourself as having been free from all financial, social, academic, etc.,
responsibilities or any other commitments on your time during the past three
years. Answer the following questions in terms of what you would have liked to
have done if that were the case.

11) How many times in the past 3 years would you have liked to organized a

group to support, advocate or protest a political or social issue?

 

12) How many times in the past 3 years would you have liked to have led, or
directly assisted in leading, an already organized group supporting, advocating

or protesting a political or social issue?

 

105

13) How many times in the past 3 years would you have liked to have
participated in a group supporting, advocating or protesting a political or social

issue?

 

14) How many times in the past 3 years would you have liked to have engaged in

an extended argument with anyone over a political or social issue?

 

15) Approximately how much time during the average day would you like to

 

spend discussing political or social issues?
16) Approximately how many times in the past 3 years would you have liked to
have written something (pamphlet, handout, email, etc.) designed specifically to

either inform or convince other people concerning a political or social issue?

 

17) How much time during the average day would you like to spend reading,
watching or listening to news, opinions, editorials, or factual information on

political or social issues?

 

18) How many times in the average month would you like to go to hear a

scheduled speaker talking about political or social issues?

 

19) How many times in the average year would you like to participate in

demonstrations, marches or rallies?

 

20) How many times in the average year would you like to contribute money to a

social or political cause?

 

106

 

Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression Scales
This questionnaire contains statements about arguing controversial issues and is
concerned with how we try to get people to comply with our wishes. Indicate how
often each statement is true for you personally by placing the appropriate number
in the blank to the left of the statement. If the statement is almost never true for
you, place a “1” in the blank. If the statement is rarely true for you, place a “2” in
the blank. If the statement is occasionally true for you, place a “3” in the blank. If
the statement is often true for you, place “4” in the blank. If the statement is

almost always true for you, place a “5” in the blank.

 

__ 1. While in an argument, I worry that the person I am arguing with will form
a negative impression of me.

_ 2. I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue.

__ 3. Once I finish an argument I promise myself that I will not get into
another.

__ 4. Arguing with a person creates more problems for me than it solves.

_ 5. When I finish arguing with someone I feel nervous and upset.

_ 6. I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue.

__ 7. I get an unpleasant feeling when I realize I am about to get into an
argument.

_ 8. I am happy when I keep an argument from happening.

_ 9. I consider an argument an exciting intellectual challenge.

10. I find myself unable to think of effective points during an argument.

107

11. I am extremely careful to avoid attacking individual’s intelligence when
l attack their idea.

12. When individuals are very stubborn, I use insults to soften the
stubbornness.

13. If individual I am trying to influence really deserve it, I attack their

character.

14. I try to make people feel good about themselves even when their

ideas are stupid.

15. When people simply will not budge on a matter of importance I lose
my temper and say rather strong things to them.

16. When individuals insult me, | get a lot of pleasure out of really telling

them off.

17. When I dislike individuals greatly, I try not to show it in what I say or

how I say it.

18. When I attack another person’s’ ideas, I try not to damage their self-
concepts.

19. I refuse to participate in arguments when they involve personal
aflacks.

20. When nothing seems to work in trying to influence other, I yell and

scream in order to help correct their behavior.

108

 

History Interview Protocol

. Could you tell me how you became involved with the issue of domestic
partner benefits at MSU?

1a. probe as necessary

. Could you tell me to the best of your knowledge the history of this issue?
Please include any key events, dates, names, etc.

2a. probe as necessary

. Could you tell me about your own personal contribution to the domestic

 

partner benefit issue at MSU?

3a. probe as necessary

. Do you have any records of this issue (meeting notes, media clippings, etc.)
that you would be willing to share with me?

. Who else do you think it is critical that I speak with in order to get a better

picture of the history of this issue?

109

MSU Community Telephone Poll

Hi, I am calling for, X . ls s/he in?

I am calling from Department of Communication. In conjunction with Professor
XXX, we are conducting a short survey to get your opinions about some
University issues. It will take about 5 minutes of your time. Any answers you give
us are completely confidential and will be used for research purposes only. Your
participation is completely voluntary. You can stop at any time or you can choose

not to answer any questions. We would really appreciate it if you would be willing

 

to answer some questions. Can I take 5 approximately minutes of your time?
I) What are some major issues on campus that the MSU Board of Trustees has
acted upon recently?

(If person asks, the board of trustees is a group of 8 elected people who
make policy decisions for the university)

Probe 2 times: Is there anything else?
2) In your opinion, what are the major issues on campus that the MSU Board of
Trustees should consider in the near future?

Probe 2 times: Is there anything else?
3) Some public Universities in the state of Michigan have considered or have
granted domestic partner benefits to their employees in the past 5 years. These
benefits include health benefits for gay and lesbian couples. To the best of your

knowledge, does :

110

Wayne State University have domestic partner benefits?
Yes No Don’t Know
Eastern Michigan University have domestic partner benefits?
Yes No Don’t Know
Western Michigan University?
Yes No Don’t Know
Central Michigan University?
Yes No Don’t Know
Northern Michigan University have domestic partner benefits?
Yes No Don’t Know
Ferris State University?
Yes No Don’t Know
Grand Valley State University?
Yes No Don’t Know
University of Michigan have domestic partner benefits?
Yes No Don’t Know
MSU?
Yes (Go to 4)No (Go to 5) DK
4) (if they indicated that MSU gcfis have benefits answer; if not skip to question
5)
4a) You indicated that MSU has domestic partner benefits. For how long

has MSU had them?

111

 

4b) How did you hear about them? (pollster number from 13’ to ...)

__ Friend _ At work/co-worker

__ State News __ Lansing State Journal
__ On TV __ Overheard a conversation
__ In Class __ Other, write in

__ On radio

 

4c) Did MSU grant domestic partner benefits to:

faculty? Yes No Don’t Know
staff? Yes No Don’t Know
graduate students? Yes No Don’t Know
undergraduate students? Yes No Don’t Know

5) What would you say your opinion is toward state universities granting their
employees domestic partner benefits? Would you say your opinion is. ..
highly opposed neutral in favor highly don’t care
opposed in favor
6) Has your opinion changed about domestic partner benefits at any time? Yes
(Go to 63) No (Go to 7)
6a) When?
6b) Why?

Pollster» DON’T READ “DON’T KNOW’ FOR THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS

112

 

 

 

7) What would you say most MSU faculty members’ view toward state
universities granting their employees domestic partner benefits is? Would you
say they are...

highly opposed neutral in favor highly don’t know or
opposed in favor don’t care

8) What would your say most MSU administrators’ view toward state universities
granting their employees domestic partner benefits is? Would you say they are...
highly opposed neutral in favor highly don’t know or
opposed in favor don’t care

9) How about most MSU staff members’ opinions?

highly opposed neutral in favor highly don’t know or
opposed in favor don’t care
10) Most MSU graduate students’ opinions are?

highly opposed neutral in favor highly don’t know or
opposed in favor don’t care
11) Most MSU undergraduate students’ opinions are?

highly opposed neutral in favor highly don’t know or
opposed in favor don’t care
12) How about most people in Michigan’s view ?

highly opposed neutral in favor highly don’t know or

opposed in favor don’t care

113

 

13) What are the major reasons that people jgfgvgr of domestic partner benefits
give for their view? (pollster, please number answers from 13’ to ...)

__ Economic/FinanciaI/Cost

_ Equality/Equity/Not Fair

__ Other companies/universities give them

_ Part of anti-discrimination protection

Help retain/recruit good faculty/staff/students
__ Entitled

Other,

 

 

Other,

 

14) What are the major reasons that people who are opposed to domestic
partner benefits give for their view? (pollster, please # answers from 13’ to ..)
Economic/Financial/Cost
_ Not Fair
Other companies/universities give them, but we don’t have to
Not part of anti-discrimination
Shouldn’t encourage them/not good employees/let them work
somewhere else
__ Morality
Everyone will try to take advantage of them/lie about homosexuality
__ Illegal
__ Anti-Democratic

Other,

 

114

15) What is the major reason that you would give in support of your opinion about

domestic partner benefits?

In Favor: Opposed:
_Economichinancial/Cost _ Economic/Financial/Cost
_ Equality/Equity/Not Fair __ Not Fair
__ Other companies/universities offer __ Others give them, but we

don’t have to
Part of anti-discrimination protection Not part of anti-

discrimination protection

 

 

__ Help retain/recruit good __ Let them work
faculty/staff/students somewhere else

_ Entitled _ Morality

_ Other, _Everyone will try to

 

take advantage/lie
Illegal
Anti-Democratic

Other,

 

16) How many times in the past 3 years have you participated in a group

supporting, advocating, or protesting a political or social issue? (If

 

none skip to 17)
16a) If indicated, which issue or issues?

16b) For each, what is your position?

115

17) How many times in the past month have you engaged in an extended

argument over a political or social issue?

 

18) How much time during the average day do you spend reading, listening to, or
watching news, opinions, editorials or factual information about political or social

issues?

 

19) Could you tell me which, if any, newspapers do you usually read at least
once per week?

(Pollster-circle all that apply)

 

MSU State News East Lansing Town Courier
NONE Lansing State Journal
MSU Bulletin Detroit Free Press

Other Detroit News

Other

 

20) Which, if any, radio stations do you listen to the most? (Please write in as

many as they give in the order they give them)

 

21) Which, if any TV stations, do you watch the most? (Pollster-circle all that

appbo
WKAR (Public TV) CBS NBC
ABC FOX CABLE
NONE
Other

 

116

 

22) Are you an administrator, staff member, faculty, graduate student or
undergraduate student at MSU? (circle one)
Faculty (Go to 24) Staff (Go to 23) Grad (Go to 24)

Undergrad (Go to 24) Admin (Go to 24)

23) If staff: Which union do you belong to? CTU APA APSA
1588 (cafeteria/custodians) 999 (skilled) 547 (engineers)
IATSE (stage)

24) What year were you born?

 

25) Are you male or female? (pollster-circle the answer, don’t ask if known)

 

26) What is your race or ethnicity? (pollster-circle one)

African American Foreign, which country

 

Asian American /Pacific Islander Caucasian/Euro-American
Native American Multiracial

Hispanic/Latino(a) Other,

 

27) With what religion, if any, do you identify? (pollster-circle one answer)

 

Protestant, which Agnostic
Catholic Jewish
Muslim Buddhist
NONE Other,

 

117

28) What is the highest level of education you have finished? (pollster-circle one
answer)

some high school

high school diploma

some college

associates or technical degree

4 year college

some grad school

master’s

 

doctorate
29) Which political party, if any, do you belong to? (circle one)

Republican Democratic Independent Libertarian Communist None

Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact

XXX at XXX phone. We really appreciate your opinions!

118

 

 

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE CODING FOR ARGUMENTATION INTERVIEW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example 1:
—> —>
—> I —> —>
Length = 2, 3 Number = 2 Integration = 0
Example 2:
——>
—> i _»
Length = 2, 3, 3 Number = 3 Integration = 3

119

 

 

REFERENCES

120

References

Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: Vintage Books.

Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Anderson, A. (1991). Source strategies and the communication of
environmental affairs. Media, Culture, and Society. 13, 459-476.

Anderson, J. M., & Dovre, P. J. (Eds.). (1968). Readings in argumentation.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Barnard, L. (1995, November 9). COGS shows support for partner
benefits. The State News, 1.

Billig, M. (1996). flguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social
psycholgy (2nCl ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blumer, H. (1948). Public opinion and public opinion polling. American
Sociological Review, E, 542-554.

Blumer, H. (1957). Collective behavior. In J. B. Gittler (Ed.), Review of
Sociology (pp. 127-158). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Socfi
Problems, fl, 298-306.

Boster, F. J., & Levine, T. (1988). Individual differences and compliance
gaining message selection: The effects of verbal aggressiveness,
argumentativeness, dogmatism, and negativism. Communication Research
m,g,114-119.

Campo, S., & Salmon, C. T. (1997, October). Men, patriots, and Christian

zealots: Newspaper framing of the Pro-Life Movement’s annual marches, 1974-

121

1993. Paper presented at the meeting of the Inaugural Conference of the Center
for Journalism and Mass Communication, Columbia, SC.

Carter, K. L. (1995, November 10). ‘U’ reacts to trustee decision. _Th_e
State News, 1.

Caywood, C. L. (Ed.) ( 1997). The handbook of strategic public relations
and integrated communications. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The
dynamics of agenda-building Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Condit, C. M. (1994). Two sides to every question: The impact of news

 

formulas on abortion policy options. A_rgumentation, _8, 327-336.

Condit, C. M., & Condit, D. M. (1992). Smoking OR health: Incremental
erosion as a public interest group strategy. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds),
Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 241-256). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crable, R. E. & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing
public policy. Public Relations Review, 1_1, 3-16.

Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The “issue-attention cycle”.
The Public Interest, E, 38-50.

Editorial Board (1995, November 10). Board insults ‘U’: No excuse for

trustees delay on domestic partner issue. The State News, 4.

122

 

Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the
public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 4_Q, 427-448.

Fisher, W. R., & Sayles, E. M. (1966). In G. R. Miller & T. R. Nilsen (Eds),
Perspectives on argumentation (pp. 2-22). Chicago: Scott, Foresman and
Company.

Fried, B., Ferejohn, J, Franklin, J., Greely, H., Kelman, M., Meier, J., Satz,
D., & Sharigian, K. J. (1994). Domestic partner benefits: A case study.

Washington: College and University Personnel Association.

 

Galaskiewicz, J., & Burt, R. S. (1991). lnterorganization contagion in
corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 88-105.

Gamson, W. A. (1961). A theory of coalition formation. American
Sociological Review, 26, 373-382.

Gamson, W. A. (1966). Rancorous conflict in community politics.
American Sociological Review, 3_1, 71-81.

Gamson, W. (1990). The strategy of social protest (2nd ed.). Belmont:
Wadsworth.

Gamson, W. A. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public
opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of
Sociology,_9_5, 1-37.

Gamson, W. A. & Stuart, D. (1992). Media discourse as symbolic contest:

The bomb in political cartoons. Social Forum, Z, 55-86.

123

Gamson, W. A. & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movement and media as
interacting systems. flinals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences, 528, 114-125.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watchinLMass media in the making
and the unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: The University of California Press.

Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of
experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Gould, K. A. (1993). Pollution and perception: Social visibility and local
environmental mobilization. Qualitative Sociology, fl, 157-178.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1997, July). Review of a research program
on activism: Incidence in four countries, activist publics, strategies of activist
groups, and organizational responses to activism. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Fourth Public Relations Research Symposium, Managing
Environmental Issues, Lake Bled, Slovenia.

Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A
longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 619-652.

Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward
media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, fl, 147-167.

Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and
public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Human Rights Campaign (1999). Employers with domestic partner
policies as of September 15, 1999 [On-line]. Available: http://wwwhrcorg/

issues/workplac/data.html.

124

lnfante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of
argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 4g, 72-80.

lnfante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., Ill. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An
interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monoggph_s, 53, 61-69.

lyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social
movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-553.

Jenkins, J. C., & Perrow, C. (1977). Insurgency of the powerless: Farm
Workers Movements (1946-1972). American Sociological Review, 42, 249-268.

Johnson, H. (1995, December 6). SN board votes for limited ‘U’ boycott.
The State News, 3.

Johnson, H. (1996, January 23). McPherson draws up benefits strategy.
The State News, 1.

Jones, B. L., & Chase, W. H. (1979). Managing public policy issues. Egb_lig
Relations Review, 2, 3-23.

Kerpelman, L. C. (1969). Student political activism and ideology:
Comparative characteristics of activists and non-activists. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, m, 8-13.

Kerpelman, L. C. (1972). Activists and nonactivlsts: A pscyhological study
of American college students. New York: Behavioral Publications.

Key, V. O. (1961). Public opinion and American democracy. New York:

Knopf

125

 

Kielbowicz, R. C., & Scherer, C. (1986). The role of the press in the
dynamics of social movements. Research in Social Movements. Conflicts and
Cm; 9, 71-96.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.).
New York: Harper Collins.

Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psmhology of protest. Oxford:
Blackwell.

Klandermans, B., & Tarrow, S. (1988). Mobilization into social movements:
Synthesizing European and American approaches. International Social
Movement Research,_1, 1-38.

Kriesberg, L. (1988). Peace movements and government peace efforts.
Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, fl, 57-75.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, Q,
155-178.

Kuhn, D. (1996). Is good thinking scientific thinking? In D. R. Olson & N.
Torrance (Eds), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and comion (pp.
261-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J. & Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community
structure and interorganizational linkages. Annual Review of Sociologv. 4, 455-

484.

126

Lincoln, J. R. (1982). Intra- (and inter-) organizational networks. Sociology
of Organizations. 1, 1-38.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Company.

Machniak, C. (1997, April 8). Trustees remain split on partner benefits
issue. The State News, 1.

Martin, P. Y. (1990). Rethinking feminist organizations. Gender & Society.
4, 182-206.

McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom summer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Comparative

 

perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities. mobilizigg structures.
and cultural framing; New York: Cambridge.

McBurney, J. H., & Mills, G. E. (1968). In J. M. Anderson & P. J. Dovre
(Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 255-262). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social
movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, Q, 1212-1241.

McCombs, M. E. (1992). Explorers and surveyors: Expanding strategies
for agenda setting research. Journalism Quarterly, 6_9, 813-824.

McCombs, M. E., 8 Shaw, D. L., (1972). The agenda-setting function of
the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly. 36, 176-187.

McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. (Eds) (1997).
Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in awlda-

setting theom Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

127

Mills, G. E. (1968). Reason in controversy: On general argumentation (2nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Morris, A. (1984). The origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black
communities organizing for change. New York: Free Press.

Morris, A. D., & Mueller, C. M. (1992). Frontiers in social movement
m New Haven: Yale University Press.

Moving forward: Lesbians and gay men at Michigan State University (vol.
1). (1992). A report of the University Wide Task Force on Lesbian and Gay
Issues at Michigan State. University. East Lansing: Michigan State University,
Board of Trustees.

Neuman, W. R. (1986). The paradox of mass politics: Knowledge and
opinion in the American electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The spiral of silence: Public opinion- our
social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in
a_rgumentation theory and research (pp. 3—23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.

O’Keefe, D. J. (1997). Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A
meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in
persuasive messages. Argmentation and Advocacy, 3_4, 1-12.

Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships:

Integration and future directions. Academy of Managment Review. 15, 241-265.

128

 

 

I.

.1...

Olson, D. R., Torrance, N. (Eds.). (1996). Modes of tthuLht: Explorations
in culture and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pfeiffer, C. (1994, October 12). Partner benefits sought by staff: Lesbian-
bi-gay group pleads with donators to boycott ‘U’. The State News, 1.

Protess, D. L., Cook, F. L., Doppelt, J. C., Ettema, J. S., Gordon, M. T.,
Leff, D. R., & Miller, P. (1991). The iournalism of outrage: Investigative reporting
and agenda building in America. New York: Guilford.

Protess, D. L., & McCombs, M. (Eds.) (1991). Agenda setting: Readings
on media. public opinion. and policymaking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Robinson, R. J., & Keltner, D. (1996). Much ado about nothing?:
Revisionists and traditionalists choose an introductory English syllabus.
Psychological Science, _7_, 18-24.

Rogers, E. M., & Dearing, J. W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where
has it been, where is it going? Communication Yearbook. 11, 555-594.

Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of
agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43, 68-84.

Romanelli, E. (1991). The evolution of new organizational forms. AM
Review of Sociology, 11, 79-103

Ross, L., Greene, 0., & House, P. (1977). The ‘false consensus effect’: An
egocentric bias in social perception and attributional process. Journal of
Experimental Social Psvcholggy, fl, 279-301.

Rupp, L. J., & Taylor, V. (1987). Survival in the doldrums : The American

women's rights movement. 1945 to the 19603. New York : Oxford.

129

Shroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. (1967). Human information
processing: Individuals and groups functioning in cggiitivelv complex situations.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Snow, A. (1995, October 31). Benefits issue to be reviewed: Final step in
debate rests with Board. The State News, 1.

Snow, A., & leon, P. (1995, August 31). ‘U’ denies domestic partner
benefits. The State News, 1.

Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and
participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.

Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986).
Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation.
American Sociological Review, 5_1, 464-481.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Tarrow, S. (1983). Struggling to reform: Social movements and policy
changes during cycles of protest. Western Societies Occasional Paper No. 15,
New York Center for International Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Taylor, V. (1989). Social movement continuity: The women’s movement in
abeyance. American Sociolggical Review, _5_4_, 761-775.

Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1980). Community conflict
and the press. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

130

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of realigr.
New York: Free Press.

Weinberg, A. S., & Gould, K. A. (1993). Public participation in
environmental regulatory conflicts: Treading through the possibilities and pitfalls.
Law and Policy, _1_5, 139-167.

Wilson, R. (1999). For gay academics, benefits of partners have a
financial and emotional impact: Professors value the money they save and the
validation their relationships receive. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(23), A1 0-
A12.

Wolfsfeld, G. (1984a). Collective political action and media strategy: The
case of Yamit. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 363-38.

Wolfsfeld, G. (1984b). Symbiosis of press and protest: An exchange
analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 6_1, 550-555.

Wolfsfeld, G. (1987). Protest and the removal of Yamit: Ostentatious
political action. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2;, 103-116.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Zaroo, P. S. (1995, August 31). Same sex privileges debated. The State

News, 1.

131