With support from the University of Richmond

History News Network

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Yale Resolution

GESO Resolution

WHEREAS Yale graduate employees have been trying to unionize for twelve years.

AND WHEREAS, whatever our opinions on unionization, we believe that discussion around this question should occur in an atmosphere which reflects the values of the academy.

AND WHEREAS an academic labor panel was convened on September 20, 2003, to consider charges of intimidating and coercive behavior by the Yale administration and some faculty, particularly in science departments. The panel consisted of: Fred Feinstein (chairman), former NLRB General Counsel; Cynthia Estlund, Professor, Columbia Law; Karl Klare, Professor Northeastern Law; Adolph Reed, Professor, Political Science at the New School; Robert Reich, Professor, Brandeis, and former U.S. Labor Secretary; and Emily Spieler, Dean, Northeastern School of Law.

AND WHEREAS their statement notes, "The fact that so many students reported threatening and intimidating experiences, including in relationships with their immediate academic supervisors, itself raises a serious concern ... Even if the reports we heard at the forum are exaggerated or mistaken, everyone connected with Yale should be alarmed by the apparent level of distrust, which cannot serve the interests of any segment of the community."

AND WHEREAS the statement concludes, "we note with regret that the consequence of the administration's position, if sustained by the NLRB, is that the serious charges of intimidation and interference with expressional freedom raised by GESO's supporters will never receive any sort of adjudicative hearing."

BE IT RESOLVED that the Yale administration and GESO (the graduate employee union at Yale) should, as recommended by this statement, "find a mutually acceptable forum for reaching some understanding about conduct that members of the Yale community regard as a genuine threat to their freedom of belief and expression. That forum could be the NLRB if all parties conceded its jurisdiction; or it could be another forum devised by the parties."