Thoughts on the IUB faculty resolutions supporting SAA unionization and strikes
Dear IU Bloomington faculty colleagues,
As a member of the Bloomington Faculty Council, a 40-year member of the IU Bloomington community, and someone who has closely observed these matters, I’m writing to offer my thoughts as you consider the two resolutions from Monday’s campus faculty meeting. You should have received these yesterday. (In case you don’t have the email, it can be viewed here.) Voting will begin Monday.
First, I am mindful that the student academic appointees (“SAAs”) who abandoned their undergraduate students and other responsibilities this spring are typically of about the same age, maturity, and intellect as the students my colleagues and I teach in the Maurer School of Law. I adore our students and work hard for them. But I would not believe they were entitled to anything they might demand, and I would not believe that, as a faculty member, I was obligated to set aside my experience, knowledge, and judgment about the University in deference to theirs.
The resolutions present important matters for all of us as stewards of the campus’s academic mission. Approval would commit the IUB faculty to the view that a union must be recognized and empowered to represent SAAs, and that matters of academic freedom and shared governance are “best protected” through the involvement of an electrical workers’ union, a proposition that is absurd. The resolutions also would commit the faculty to the position that SAAs who went on strike this spring, or do so in the future, must have impunity to refuse to teach their classes or report student grades.
Both of these are “sense of the faculty” resolutions. They were not written or presented in a way that would change any specific policies that fall under the faculty’s legislative authority. They also cannot command any administrative action, and to the extent they purport to do so, they are ultra vires and don’t reflect a correct understanding of the University’s legal structure. However, it is likely that if approved they would be misrepresented as carrying greater authority than they do.
The resolutions contain several inaccurate or misleading statements. I will highlight and correct those here. Then I’ll share my conclusions on the merits. Please feel free to forward this message with any colleagues outside the law school who might find the information helpful.
Resolution #1:
While appointment/reappointment decisions about SAAs, like such decisions involving faculty, are primarily made at the departmental or school level, that does not mean such decisions are insulated from the authority of the campus. The subtext here is the resolution supporters’ confidence that chairs or deans would be less likely than campus-level administrators to hold SAAs accountable if they walk off their responsibilities. But like all personnel and resource issues, such appointments are subject to campus policies and approval by campus-level administrators, and the faculty does not have legislative authority to make it otherwise.
While SAAs, like faculty, are entitled to due process for any disciplinary action that might be taken against them, there are no substantive protections in campus policy for willful refusal to carry out one’s academic responsibilities. Current faculty-approved policy on SAA reappointments provides, “Reappointment is contingent upon: 1) reasonable progress toward the graduate degree, 2) satisfactory discharge of duties in previous appointments, 3) conformity to University policies during previous appointments, 4) availability of funds, and 5) the specific appointment policies of the Department or School.”
Resolution #3B:
Contrary to the assertion in paragraph 10, the Provost and campus administration do not have the “authority to negotiate with a recognized bargaining agent.” Such authority could only be conferred by the trustees.
Concerning paragraph 9, while it is true that the trustees delegate signature authority to various university officials allowing them to enter into routine contracts for goods and services, there is no blanket authority or practice under which the trustees automatically “ratify contracts negotiated by campus administration.” Indeed, since Pam Whitten’s presidency began, the trustees have asserted themselves and altered their bylaws to require that they be more closely involved in major personnel decisions.
* * *
In February 2021, my colleague Lauren Robel, as provost, wrote an exhaustive memo responding to the concerns of the SAA coalition, and you can find that here. It remains the campus’s position today.
I have also been influenced by the behavior of the strike leaders. Although they ended the strike for now, they are telling SAAs to remove their courses from Canvas — the only purpose being to allow them, when there is another strike, to more effectively hold hostage the academic records of any students they’re responsible for.
I will vote against the resolutions. I support unions for actual workers. But these are students who hold part-time academic appointments and, in addition to being paid between $20–40/hour (as of July 1, the lowest 10-month, half-time stipend will be $18,000), get fully paid tuition and health insurance. In some College departments, graduate students get these stipends as part of their recruiting packages regardless of teaching or grading duties, which also cuts against the idea that such stipends must be thought of as wages in return for labor. In some disciplines, IU’s stipends are not competitive with those of other institutions, but unionization is not the way to address that.
Steve Sanders
