Thoughts from the mid-west #2

September 27th, 2002 | by aobaoill |

One of the major live issues in American universities at present is that of the unionisation of graduate employees. Graduate unions are now recognised on over 30 campuses, but on many more university administrators are resisting such moves.

Among such recalcitrant universities, one finds UIUC. Since approximately 1994, graduate students have been campaigning for union recognition, with little success until this past year. The standard institutional defence is two-pronged. First, one questions employee support. This approach lost weight after the GEO (graduate employee organization) organised an unofficial ballot which resulted in a 2-1 win.

The second approach is to question whether graduate employees are really employees at all. If you’re not an employee, you can’t really be represented by a trade union, can you? As someone who has faced this argument myself in the past, I know how it tends to flummox you. How do you combat someone’s denial of (a vital aspect of) your existence?

The GEO’s answer was simple: an occupation of the main administration building by 50 students last March. Within hours, the administration agreed to enter negotiations on recognition for the first time. Where previous multi-day work-stoppages had failed, this was obviously a case of “hit ’em where it hurts!” One wonders whether USI’s occupation of the department of education’s boardroom will prove as effective…

A ballot on recognition is expected early next year, and the issue has faded somewhat from the press, though preparations for the ballot continue behind the scenes.

What has replaced it on the front page of ‘The Daily Illini’ is the issue of dissections. A campaign group has been formed – and is by now gathering steam – with the aim of having dissections made optional for biology students.

Many lecturers will allow students on elementary biology courses to avoid dissection if they make a ‘reasonable request’, but assert that ‘alternatives are not acceptable in higher-level classes that are directly related to a student’s major’.

Campaigners, for their part, claim that a general right must be established, to remove inconsistency and create a universal policy. They claim that dissections can be adequately replaced with videos and computer simulations.

The campaign is exemplary, highlighting individual students who have been forced to make difficult ethical decisions, such as the first year student who ‘chose [her] beliefs over [her] grade’ in refusing to complete the mandatory dissections earlier this year. Another case, highlighted in a later newspaper article, involved a former veterinarian student who had refused to do surgery on a healthy animal while at the University of Pennsylvania.

As a testament to the efficacy of the campaign, it has already gained the unanimous backing of ‘Illinois Student Government’, despite the belief of several representatives that biology students should complete at least one dissection before graduating. The campaign’s success in the face of such attitudes arises from its emphasis of the, quintessentially American, primacy of individual choice.

The doctrine of individual choice may help with the question of dissection, but it is less effective in addressing a third issue to confront the university in recent times: the sports mascot.

Chief Illiniwek has been the mascot of the university teams since the late nineteenth century. A fictional amalgam of various native American traditions and cultures, it has come under fire in recent years for being offensive to native Americans.

Traditions are traditions, however, and an active ‘respect the Chief’ campaign has developed, on the grounds that, well, its a tradition. Its not _intended_ to create offense, so it mustn’t be offensive.

Both sides to the argument have produced video documentaries, with one lecturer publishing a book. However, while the number of bodies recommending ‘an honorary retirement’ has grown, the university board of trustees has avoided taking action.

The common belief is that this is due to one factor: money. Well, actually, two factors, as many people can’t resist implicating fraternities.

College traditions are held in high regard by fraternities, which tend to produce an inordinate proportion of rich and powerful graduates, who in turn provide a sizeable portion of the university’s budget. In order for the trustees to ‘retire the Chief’, they must first be sure that this will not antagonise potential donors.

Solutions, please, on a postcard…

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.