{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020222446916076844, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.387096774193548, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Variables Influencing Same-Sex Domestic Partner Benefits for College and University Faculty and Employees

The provision of health care benefits by American universities and colleges to employees and their families would seem to be a mundane administrative chore. Controversy arises, though, over the question of extending employee health benefits to other-sex partners of faculty and employees. Many American colleges and universities still do not make such a provision, despite its obvious advantages. These include, among others, both the attraction and the retention of valuable employees. We argue here that the administration of university affairs, including both public and private institutions, is not immune from the effects of state and national culture and politics. We find that region, religion, politics, and race all contribute to the explanation of why some institutions grant health care benefits to other-sex domestic partners of faculty and employees, and others do not.