Letters to the Editor

Eroding the core mission To the editor: Using fashionably histrionic rhetoric in line with the Bush clan's war on terror, Richard Gelles shared his union experiences ("The evil of unions," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 2/26/03) in yesterday's guest column. Gelles commented on the "corruption" of the "entrepreneurial spirit of inquiry," as well as the "stultifying culture of mediocrity" attributable to one particular axis of evil faculty union. Gelles' fearful tales suggest that a union at Penn will be the end of the supposed excellence we enjoy at our non-unionized university. However, it is important to note that the University of Michigan, which has been ranked as the No. 1 School of Social Work in U.S. News and World Report, has one of the oldest graduate student unions in the country. In its 28-year history, the union has been able to win healthcare coverage for dependents and childcare subsidies without "corrupting" the spirit of academic excellence. Perhaps, Dean Gelles, what you need to capture that coveted No. 1 spot is a graduate employee union. As newly appointed dean of Penn's School of Social Work, Gelles should know more about the history of unionization and social work's support for labor militancy during the Progressive Era and Great Depression. The activities of social workers during these times provided the most vibrant elements of the discipline's history by putting forth a platform for economic justice and radical redistribution of wealth. The subsequent professionalization of social work -- driven by the very "entrepreneurial spirit" that Gelles extols -- has co-opted social work's revolutionary valence, relegating it to its current status primarily as an agent of social control. The corporatization of the University -- a place that was set out to remain free from market values -- is having a similar impact on the critical valence of academic research. Gelles chooses to celebrate these developments -- along with self proclaimed CEO Judith Rodin -- as a sign of "excellence" in the academic "enterprise." Yet, as I see it, it is the "vibrancy of merit" and the "entrepreneurial spirit of inquiry" that is truly corrupting our University and eroding its original mission. Lastly, unions are democratic entities that can change through employee voice. If a union becomes corrupt, its members must rise up to change it. Without a union, when our administration becomes corrupted by corporate ideologies such as those espoused by Gelles, we have no recourse but to sit and bask in the "entrepreneurial spirit" and fatuous excellence of the corporate university. Robert FairbanksSocial Welfare doctoral candidate Myths of the status quo To the editor: I was very disappointed with your staff editorial ("Staff editorial: Vote no on grad union," DP, 2/26/03) yesterday. While I respect your right to have such a view, it should be based on accepted facts. The "one-size-fits-all" myth has been empirically disproven time and time again, as graduate employee locals have been able to negotiate different deals for different departments if they have wanted. At a December forum, Law Professor Clyde Summers emphasized that collective bargaining is as flexible as the parties want it to be. Orchestras typically negotiate different working conditions for different employees (i.e. the first violinist gets paid more than the second flute, etc.). The real drive for standardization usually comes from the employer to increase efficiency. The contours of the bargaining unit are the logical extension of administrators' arguments and are not up to us. Moreover, other schools have dealt successfully with such units. I don't know where you got the idea that two TAs in the same class could have different eligibility. If you found this somewhere in the labor board's decision, please let me know. More generally, the editorial is filled with fear and clings to the status quo. You suggest that some nebulous unpleasant thing might happen here and such and such bad thing might happen there. This is, of course, the central theme of this administration's anti-union campaign. Sadly, the employer seeks to spread fear and confusion in every anti-union campaign, whether it be on a chicken farm or at a university. Your staff has accepted a status quo that is not standing still; it is one of an increasingly casual and underpaid teaching force. I have written dozens of academic recommendations for Penn undergrads who have had no quality contact time with a faculty member. In the years ahead, non-tenure track faculty will teach more and more of your classes. By default, this is what you have endorsed. I am glad that you did recognize that if GET-UP wins, wages and healthcare would increase for graduate employees. Moreover, I appreciate that you believe we have a right to vote on this issue. But in the end, you say that "current circumstances" are not problematic enough to justify a change. Well, I and the majority of graduate employees couldn't disagree more. Michael JansonPolitical science Ph.D. candidate

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.