May 22, 2025
Q&A: What universities can learn about navigating ideological tension from the history of same-sex domestic partner benefits
Researchers found that universities — especially those in conservative states — often strategically adjusted not just whether and when they adopted inclusive policies, but also how they justified those decisions.Pixabay
As public universities across the U.S. face increasing scrutiny over issues such as diversity initiatives and tenure protections, new research from the University of Washington offers timely lessons on how universities can navigate politically charged issues without abandoning their core commitments.
The study, recently published in Organization Science, examines how public universities decided whether to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits in the early 1990s and 2000s. Researchers found that universities — especially those in conservative states — often strategically adjusted not just whether and when they adopted inclusive policies, but also how they justified those decisions.
“When universities face powerful stakeholders who oppose their values, how they frame their decisions can be as important as the decisions themselves,” said Abhinav Gupta, co-author and professor of management in the UW Foster School of Business.
UW News spoke with Gupta about what universities can learn from this earlier period of cultural and political tension.
Can you tell me about the inspiration for this research?
AG: This project began when I was a doctoral student at The Pennsylvania State University, where my co-authors and I were interested in understanding how institutional change unfolds under ideological pressure. We were especially drawn to the LGBTQ+ rights movement, which has been one of the most successful in recent U.S. history — not only in shifting cultural values, but also in driving tangible changes in workplace policy and practice.
Among those changes, the adoption of same-sex domestic partner benefits by universities stood out as a concrete, measurable outcome with real resource implications. It offered us a focused way to examine how inclusive policies are implemented within institutions that must navigate competing political and economic demands.
We weren’t just curious about whether universities adopted these benefits — we wanted to understand how they managed the politics of those decisions, especially in states where conservative legislatures controlled university budgets. This was an opportunity to study how organizations pursue values-based change pragmatically, often advancing their commitments in ways that are sensitive to the views of key stakeholders.
Over time, we built a comprehensive dataset of top public universities, tracking the progression of this policy between 1990 and 2013. Modeling that process was painstaking, but it allowed us to identify patterns in how universities adopted and framed these decisions — strategically aligning with trusted actors in their environments, such as major local employers, and adjusting their rhetoric to reduce backlash.
Although history doesn’t repeat itself exactly, the same underlying dynamics often resurface. This case offers a narrow but revealing window into how change happens — not through confrontation alone, but through patient, careful work that gradually builds consensus. For anyone interested in advancing equity in complex institutional settings, there are valuable lessons in how the LGBTQ+ movement translated advocacy into durable, systemic shifts.
What patterns did you notice in universities’ decision making?
AG: One of the most striking dynamics we observed was in states where public universities relied heavily on funding from conservative legislatures. In these contexts, university administrators were often deeply concerned about potential backlash. They feared that allocating funds to support same-sex domestic partner benefits could be seen as ideologically out of step with legislative priorities.
We analyzed adoption patterns across major public universities — research powerhouses and flagship institutions throughout the U.S. — and found a clear and systematic pattern. Universities in more progressive states were often early adopters of these benefits, with some acting as early as 1991. In contrast, their peers in more conservative states often waited nearly a decade longer to adopt the same policies.
But what was particularly telling was how these later adopters framed their decisions. Many universities in red states did not lead with social justice arguments. Instead, they took a “business case” approach, aligning their decisions with market-based rationales — emphasizing competitiveness, talent recruitment and employee retention. These institutions typically adopted the policy only after major local employers had done so, effectively using the private sector as cover. This allowed them to present the decision as a practical response to labor market trends rather than an ideologically driven move.
This pattern led us to develop a broader theoretical insight: when organizations anticipate ideological resistance from key stakeholders, they often look to “exemplar organizations” — entities already seen as legitimate by those stakeholders. By emulating the behavior of these exemplars and adopting rhetoric that reflects stakeholder values, they can diffuse opposition and build support without abandoning their goals.
In contrast, universities in more liberal states often cited peer institutions and framed their decisions more explicitly around fairness and inclusion. What this shows is that organizations don’t simply conform or resist in the face of ideological tension — they adapt. They make strategic choices about when and how to act, often tailoring their message and reference points to gain legitimacy in diverse political and cultural environments.
What lessons can universities take from this case study, particularly in the current environment?
AG: We’re living through a time of heightened scrutiny and political tension, and universities increasingly find themselves at the center of it. In many ways, higher education has long enjoyed a degree of autonomy — but that autonomy rests on relationships with a broad set of external stakeholders whose values may not always align with those of university leadership, faculty or students.
This moment raises a fundamental question: What should universities do when their internal priorities come into conflict with the beliefs or expectations of those who hold influence over their resources — such as policymakers, donors or community leaders? Some might argue that institutions should stay true to their values no matter the cost. But our research suggests that universities benefit more when they strategically engage their environment, not ignore it.
This doesn’t mean compromising principles. It means understanding the value systems of key stakeholders and learning to speak in ways that resonate. For example, when universities face resistance to inclusive policies, it can be effective to frame those decisions around economic competitiveness, workforce needs or community relevance — themes that often carry bipartisan appeal. The goal is not to dilute the message, but to translate it into language that expands support rather than provokes opposition.
In our research, we also emphasize the value of “exemplar organizations” — trusted institutions that skeptical stakeholders already view as legitimate. When a university can point to respected peers or private-sector leaders who have adopted a similar course of action, it lowers the perceived risk of following suit and frames the decision as pragmatic rather than ideological.
At their best, universities are extraordinary institutions. They create scientific breakthroughs, train healthcare professionals and business leaders, support local economies and open doors for the next generation. Their work benefits people across political, cultural and socioeconomic divides. To continue delivering that value, especially in contentious times, universities need to build broad-based coalitions — not by avoiding disagreement, but by finding common ground wherever possible.
Other co-authors were Chad Murphy of Oregon State University and Forrest Briscoe of Cornell University.
For more information, contact Gupta at abhinavg@uw.edu.
Tag(s): Abhinav Gupta • Foster School of Business