|
Proposal:
|
Currently, Stamp Student Union provides a space in the food court for a Chik-Fil-A franchise. I believe that the values of inclusion espoused by the University of Maryland (related to LGBT identity and gender expression) are radically different than the exclusionary policies and practices by the Chik-Fil-A corporation. On April 16, 2012, I personally met with the Director of the Student Union, several representatives from Dining Services and the Director of the MICA office to discuss my concerns and to express my view that this franchise should not be given prime space in the Union to make money (which is then, in turn, used to fund anti-LGBT causes). Essentially, I was told that the issue was "complicated," that the university had already invested a significant amount of money into the franchise, and that students really wanted to "eat chicken." My response was that that there are certainly other chicken possibilities for the Union that are not as overtly discriminatory as Chik-Fil-A, and that they should strongly consider not renewing the annual license when it expires. I was basically told: "Thanks for coming. We'll think about it." I left with a sense that the meeting was an exercise in futility and a waste of time; the end of the meeting was a foregone conclusion.
It is my belief that housing Chik-Fil-A creates an untenable situation in which the Union (and, hence, the University of Maryland) speaks about values of inclusion but actually practices and supports discrimination through its financial decisions and actions. Every lunch period creates a visual affirmation of discrimination as the University of Maryland provides space to a vehemently anti-LGBT organization to make money. We should not be in this business, because it creates a hostile environment for LGBT faculty, staff and students.
My proposal is that the Chik-Fil-A franchise not be renewed when its contract is up (which I believe is annually). It is also my belief that there have to be other suitable, financially lucrative chicken options that do not have the same level of anti-GLBT venom in their donation practices and employment policies. |
