Mrinalini Rajagopalan
I support the Pitt Faculty Union for three reasons. First, unions are quite simply the extension of democracy into the workplace; second, research and teaching excellence are compatible with providing equity for all faculty across ranks; third, when universities undermine academic labor, they perpetuate anti-intellectualism and damage our larger mission of sustaining scientific inquiry and critical reasoning.
The first point is a simple argument concerning engaged citizenship. As someone who has actively campaigned for the union for over a year, I often meet colleagues who say that a union will not solve all our problems. This is in fact true. Unions are not solutions to problems—they are simply a democratic apparatus for faculty to make their grievances and demands heard by an administration that is currently isolated from its workers. Like all democratic apparatuses, unions do not run on autopilot: they require engaged participation, fierce nurturing, and tireless vigilance. Our union too will need such commitment and solidarity across the ranks of faculty. The payoff, however, will be a stronger voice and leverage for faculty members who currently have to fend for themselves one-on-one with administrators or rely on the goodwill of department chairs and deans in order to be treated fairly. A union is the only way for faculty to advocate for our collective rights and enfranchisements.
Another specious argument made against faculty unions is that they would negatively impact research productivity and the institution’s ability to compete for the most talented workers in the knowledge economy. This is a variant of the same neo-liberal speak that has driven urban gentrification and privatized public services in the United States from primary education to health care and even drinking water. As critical thinkers, it behooves us to scrutinize narratives that demand unflinching piety to free-market capitalism. Rutgers, the University of Oregon, and the Graduate Center at CUNY are research universities that have strong faculty unions. Offering all faculty living wages and benefits, protecting the institution of tenure, and providing transparency in governance will make Pitt a more, rather than less, competitive university.
My third and final point addresses the connection between the union and the current climate of anti-intellectualism and the erosion of free speech in this country. In recent months, administrators, faculty, students, and staff at Pitt have admirably stood together against hate-speech and the marginalization of vulnerable minorities and in defense of environmental issues. Pitt now has a chance to support faculty who go to work every day and teach college students to be active and engaged citizens; whose research promotes scientific and fact-based knowledge production; and whose service supports local, national, or international communities. By dismissing the calls for a faculty union, university administrators would send a clear message that they prioritize profits and a docile labor force over workers’ rights, intellectual freedom, and respectful debate. I truly hope that my university chooses otherwise.
--Mrinalini Rajagopalan, History of Art and Architecture
The first point is a simple argument concerning engaged citizenship. As someone who has actively campaigned for the union for over a year, I often meet colleagues who say that a union will not solve all our problems. This is in fact true. Unions are not solutions to problems—they are simply a democratic apparatus for faculty to make their grievances and demands heard by an administration that is currently isolated from its workers. Like all democratic apparatuses, unions do not run on autopilot: they require engaged participation, fierce nurturing, and tireless vigilance. Our union too will need such commitment and solidarity across the ranks of faculty. The payoff, however, will be a stronger voice and leverage for faculty members who currently have to fend for themselves one-on-one with administrators or rely on the goodwill of department chairs and deans in order to be treated fairly. A union is the only way for faculty to advocate for our collective rights and enfranchisements.
Another specious argument made against faculty unions is that they would negatively impact research productivity and the institution’s ability to compete for the most talented workers in the knowledge economy. This is a variant of the same neo-liberal speak that has driven urban gentrification and privatized public services in the United States from primary education to health care and even drinking water. As critical thinkers, it behooves us to scrutinize narratives that demand unflinching piety to free-market capitalism. Rutgers, the University of Oregon, and the Graduate Center at CUNY are research universities that have strong faculty unions. Offering all faculty living wages and benefits, protecting the institution of tenure, and providing transparency in governance will make Pitt a more, rather than less, competitive university.
My third and final point addresses the connection between the union and the current climate of anti-intellectualism and the erosion of free speech in this country. In recent months, administrators, faculty, students, and staff at Pitt have admirably stood together against hate-speech and the marginalization of vulnerable minorities and in defense of environmental issues. Pitt now has a chance to support faculty who go to work every day and teach college students to be active and engaged citizens; whose research promotes scientific and fact-based knowledge production; and whose service supports local, national, or international communities. By dismissing the calls for a faculty union, university administrators would send a clear message that they prioritize profits and a docile labor force over workers’ rights, intellectual freedom, and respectful debate. I truly hope that my university chooses otherwise.
--Mrinalini Rajagopalan, History of Art and Architecture
