So here's the biz. The Nation has somehow come into possession of a memo that Alan Brinkley wrote for all the various stooges who command student labor at Columbia. For those unfamiliar (as I was until very recently) with this giant among men: Dr. Brinkley is a top American historian who specialized in the New Deal and liberalism before selling his soul to become Provost here, with an obvious eye toward grander administrative posts. Somewhere between Franz Kafka and Nathaniel Hawthorne, you find the sordid sight of our former dept chair in Low Library: he does as he's told, he checks his principles at the door. Mr. Liberalism explains how graduate students can be harassed, intimidated, and punished for striking for their right to free association, to form a union and work for their interests - a basic human right. Check it out.

If you ask me, the goons probably leaked the memo themselves, to freak people out following our one-week strike and deter them from doing anything more damaging to Columbia next year.

The memo has sparked a little listserv controversy between pro- and anti-union people in the history dept, and between the hardcore hatas and the Brinkley fans who still can't think a bad thought about the hero after his latest fall from grace. The memo suggests depriving striking students of equal consideration for various academic awards, not to mention forcing us to do additional semesters or years of teaching to receive our degree. Adina aptly noted:

"Prof. Brinkley, as a U.S. historian and the author of a widely-used survey textbook, surely knows that in the seventeenth century indentured servants, who commonly served five to seven year indentures, were often punished by having their service extended by one year (or more) if they left work without leave, got pregnant, or used the master's property without permission (most commonly killing and eating pigs or chickens)."

She then went on to quote Brinkley's textbook on the matter. I made a minor foray into the debate, just to say that the UAW will provide relief funds for us if Columbia does decide to withhold our pay next time around. I'm including some of the argument below for anyone interested in how this whole discourse plays out.




Though we are hardly all equally vulnerable, I agree that funding
has, to date, often had little to do with political commitments; my
funding history, at least, cannot simply be indexed to union
sympathy. But the memo suggests that that is about to change.

It is not simply a matter of there being 'real' consequences for
'real' striking. As Alex points out, the UAW and GSEU have been
prepared in the past to deal with such consequences as docked pay,
though they haven't yet needed to. But the Whiting and other
fellowship competitions are in another category. These are not
'employee perks'. They have nothing to do with TAships. They are
awarded, supposedly, according to the merits of scholarship.
Removing TAs who strike from competition overtly politicizes an
academic award. One might just as reasonably deny them the PhD. Or
blacklist them.

In this connection, I disagree that the question of hypocrisy is
irrelevant. There is no threat in the memo that has not come up
before, whether with Rupp, Cole, or Dean Pinkham, or that wouldn't
have been perfectly obvious to those of us who have supported the
union for some time. What is different is that it is coming from
Brinkley, who has done more than anyone in the administration to
foster the paternalistic image of the 'apprenticeship' model, which
has been and continues to be the main positive prop of the
anti-union argument. The memo shows that even for Brinkley this is
essentially a convenient pose. No doubt the pro-union people among
us are not surprised. But the 'moderate' base ought to be.

Ted



>I disagree with much of what Jason has said, but I think he is dead
>on the money that a decisive, long-term action will not be a walk
>in the park. It would be tough. And I agree with Thom that the
>administration has left us few options but a seriously disruptive
>strike of the sort Alan Brinkley seems to be planning for.
>(Indeed, couldn't this be a measure of how seriously they take our
>actions? I detect battening of hatches.) I just wanted to add
>that, should we stop working and get "punished," striking TAs and
>RAs would be eligible for relief funds from the UAW like any other
>union members... so we would not be starving in that case. Don't
>let Brinkley and his paper tigers get you down. The deed can be
>done.
>
>Alex

Quoting Jason:

OK Jason, my misinterpretation. Still, if one criticises Brinkley for
his
managerial decisions not seeming to reflect his public political stance
on
unions and the like, I don't think one forfeits the expectation of a
proffesional academic reference (independent of managerial and
political
concerns). That is, i'm not sure these are really analogous
hypocrisies, as
you put it. Surely managerial decisions are there to be influenced by
public
political positions/views (especially those which seem to have a very
direct
bearing on them. ie. support for unions, "class" politics etc).
Academic
references are not.
As for the level of support for a january strike (a proper one, with
martyrs, no stipends, and everthing), I wonder as well. I suppose at
one
point, the way things are going, we may find out.

Thom


>To: thom
>Subject: Re: hd-gha: Brinkley, union buster
>Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:02:55 -0400
>
>I never implied that this would color the writing of the reference,
>only that condemning an individual on the one hand and asking him
>for a reference on the other is the same sort of hipocrisy.
>
>There's nothing pretend about ceasing work; but labeling what
>happened last week with the same word as, say, the year long
>supermarket workers strike last year in CA seems a bit unfair to
>people who barely scraped by in that strike. Last week, "strikers"
>at Columbia sacrificed nothing, and I think that this is what Kevin
>was trying to say. Everyone has the courage to go the distance
>when the only sacrifice is not teaching for the week-- in late
>April, when the temperatures are mild and pleasant and you've
>already been paid for the year. I wonder how "overwhelming"
>support would be for a January strike, with stipend checks being
>withheld and no end date for the strike set? Not that anyone in
>the UAW ever cared for my opinion, but a January strike, at the
>outset of the semester, would be a real burden on the University.
>That would make too much sense, though, and wouldn't be as pleasant
>as what happened last week.
>
>Jason
>
>Quoting thom rath:
>
> > A basic clarification re; pretend striking.
> >
> > To strike= "Cease (work), cease work, refuse to go on working
> > unless
> > employer accedes to some demand."
> > Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
> >
> > I don't want to get into a discussion about Brinkley's hipocrisy
> > or
> > otherwise, since a) I don't really know the guy, b) I consider
> > the whole
> > issue to be rather beside the point. However, Jason's defense of
> > Brinkley's
> > professional integrity does seem oddly back-handed in suggesting
> > that such
> > an obviously political dispute might influence the writing of an
> > academic
> > reference.
> >
> > Thom
> >
OK, OK, before I set off a tempest in a teacup, I don't think I said
anywhere that we are either like indentured servants or like chattel
slaves (and I do not speak for GSEU). Still, the notion of being
"punished" for engaging in a labor dispute by having our work
requirements extended by a semester or a year struck me as preposterous
and has only one precedent that I can think of. As Jason pointed out,
the administration's problem is that if they dock our pay their legal
case (based on the notion that as TAs we are not working for money) is
moot and we will back in front of the NLRB--this is why they have to go
through such contortions to figure out how they can "discourage"
students from striking.


On Apr 26, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Kevin wrote:

> Well, before we break out the pitchforks and torches and start
> lighting effigies...
>
> I find the fact that Brinkley signed off on this letter disappointing
> to be sure -- it reads as very uncharacteristic of him. [ Can we get
> the right-wing anti-CBS memo experts up in here? :) ] That being
said,
> at the risk of seeming to align myself with this newfound enemy of
the
> people, I don't find it all that earth-shattering either.
>
> We've known for some time that there's been a disconnect between his
> private and public positions on graduate student labor...isn't that
> why irate picketers have been screaming "Sellout" in his general
> direction for the past two years? (Perhaps The Nation will tell us
> next that GSAC holds mixers...)
>
> Besides, our puzzling policy has been to treat him as an enemy &
> corporate dupe during every strike engagement, so how surprised can
we
> really be when he conforms to the low expectations we set for him?
> Obviously, Prof. Brinkley is his own man and will follow his own path
> -- still, our strategy in dealing with this potential ally has been
> all stick and no carrot from the get-go. Call me a sellout enough
> times in public and I might find our position less appealing too...
>
> More importantly, I would think that brainstorming possible responses
> to further union actions, including possible punitive remedies, is
> part of his job description as provost. And, as far as we know, none
> of the sanctions outlined in this letter (written, for the most part,
> in the subjunctive third person) were carried out.
>
> Plus, as I've said before to several of you in person, if we are
going
> to continue to pretend to be strikers, then eventually the university
> was going to pretend to be management.
>
> What do I mean by "pretend to be strikers?" I mean that, for two
years
> in a row, many of us -- myself included -- have staged a "strike"
that
> involved absolutely no loss of wages or personal hardship. I'm not up
> on labor law, so perhaps I'm wrong on this point, but I don't think
> the administration is under any obligation to pay us for services we
> don't render (particularly services we don't render in the name of a
> strike.) As for summer funding, Whitings...well, it's hardball, no
> doubt about it. But, again, I'm not sure the university is under any
> obligation to offer us those types of perks either.
>
> The fact that they're considering as such only means that: 1) GSEU's
> message that we are workers and not students is beginning to filter
> into the administration's thinking, at least at the brainstorming
> meetings, and 2) in GSEU's next strike -- which seems inevitable
given
> that it's the only option ever on the table at the higher echelons of
> our democratic union -- we may actually have to get more serious
about
> strike funds and the like.
>
> Brinkley "should be held personally responsible"? That sounds a bit
> DeLay-ish, doesn't it? I'm sure he'll be getting grief from every
> corner for this ill-advised and intemperate memo, and for good
reason.
> But, let's keep in mind -- he's not some unmasked Sith Lord in our
> midst. He's a colleague fulfilling the requirements of his position,
> albeit requirements that put him at odds with the opinions of many of
> us. As we move forward, let's at least try keep that in mind.
>
> And, hey, look on the bright side -- I suspect this memo will be
> vastly more helpful to the purposes of unionization than last week's
> strike.
>
> -KcM
>
> P.S. Regarding comparisons to indentured servitude (or, in previous
> GHA dust-ups, chattel slavery)...well, what is there to say, really?
> Y'all are good enough historians to see the fallacies in that type of
> argument, which -- sorry, Adina -- is infected with the shrill lack
of
> perspective that many graduate students on the fence find so
> distasteful about GSEU. Last I checked, unlike colonial indentured
> servants, I am free to leave My Master's University at any time and
> find employment elsewhere. At these other houses of employ, they may
> even monitor my dress and work-breaks, and force me to work from 8:30
> to 5:30 everyday.

>
> > >To: Jason
> > >Subject: Re: hd-gha: Brinkley, union buster
> > >Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:20:28 -0400
> > >
> > >Really, all the Nation article and the follow-up means is that
> > >Brinkley's official actions -- and their contrast with his own
> > >simultaneous expressions of conciliation -- are taking their
> > fair
> > >toll on his image as a liberal public intellectual. Why
> > shouldn't
> > >they?
> > >
> > >It may be that he's 'just doing his job' as Provost, but then
> > no-one
> > >forced the job on him. He fought for it at a time when the
> > >anti-union duties it would involve were perfectly clear, from
> > >Jonathan Cole's example. (And this was all well before anyone
> > >called him a 'sellout.')
> > >
> > >That's his right. But there's no reason not to hold him
> > accountable
> > >when his actions call his cherished image into question. If he
> > can
> > >put away his supposedly long-held principles whenever his new
> > job
> > >makes them inconvenient, he has no claim to them.
> > >
> > >Ted
> > >
> > >Quoting Jason
> > >
> > > > You, unlike the indentured servant, are free to leave at any
> > time
> > > > and
> > > > pursue some other line of work. Your graduate school
> > admission
> > > > letter
> > > > was not a legally binding contract requiring your presence
> > here
> > > > for any
> > > > predetermined period of time. And if you're waiting on
> > Foner's
> > > > table or
> > > > washing his linens, then you've got a more serious self
> > esteem
> > > > problem
> > > > to deal with...
> > > >
> > > > You can damn Brinkley for being a hypocrite, but the guy did
> > use
> > > > verbs
> > > > in the subjunctive mood in his memo to indicate possible
> > routes
> > > > of
> > > > action. No one has suffered the loss of any funds, like you
> > > > would in a
> > > > real strike-- one in which workers who do not work are not
> > paid.
> > > > No one
> > > > has lost preceptorships, TA positions or any other source of
> > > > regular
> > > > university funding as a result of a strike--something which
> > > > occurs quite
> > > > frequently in real strikes, where striking employees are
> > > > replaced. The
> > > > University does not consider grad students to be employees
> > and
> > > > this is
> > > > why the only repercussions of these "strikes" have been a few
> > > > days off
> > > > for the undergrads. If the University withholds pay from
> > > > striking
> > > > graduate students because they are striking, then it
> > completely
> > > > distorts
> > > > its own primary legal position--namely that we are students
> > first
> > > > and
> > > > that teaching is part of our training-- and it will not ever
> > > > consider
> > > > doing this as the UAW would have immediate grounds for
> > hearing
> > > > before
> > > > the NLRB.
> > > >
> > > > Brinkley is doing his job. Sometimes gainfully employed
> > people
> > > > have to
> > > > do things they don't like or don't agree with as part of
> > their
> > > > employment. Feel free to damn his hypocrisy, but remember
> > this
> > > > damnatio
> > > > memoriae when it comes time to ask him for a letter of
> > > > recommendation
> > > > for the job market.
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >

Ok, people - whatever you've thought about the whole union idea
thusfar,
you really ought to read Brinkley's memo. This is a new level of
ugliness,
which, besides being profoundly disappointing, demands a response.

http://www.thenation.com/special/pdf/brinkley_letter.pdf

Brinkley can no longer hide behind "the university's position" - he has
now
personally associated himself with the worst aspects of Columbia's
illiberal, corporate-style administrative culture, while lying about it
publicly, and should be held personally responsible. That starts, I
suppose, with disseminating this memo as widely as possible, within the
department and beyond. Thanks to Amy and Laura for getting that
started; I
want to give it another push....
Fired up,
Ben

> I don't think that anyone has said that Brinkley isn't being a
> hypocrite. I surely haven't, and since I'm the only person
> "hostile" to
> the UAW on this list, I can't imagine to whom you're referring.
> The
> point is that now the University is starting to think like an
> employer;
> that now the University is going to impose (surprise!) some adult
> consequences when Brinkley (and others) had stated that there
> never
> would be any consequences; that the proto-Union and its
> supporters will
> have to make real sacrifices. We were all vulnerable when we
> came to
> grad school. If you don't perform, you're out. Though I must
> say that
> performance standards involve flexible criteria, and some people
> who
> haven't advanced properly are allowed to continue spinning their
> wheels. You can spin this memo anyway you want, but the gist is
> that,
> as Kevin pointed out quite nicely, if you're going to strike
> there may
> be consequences. Those who have been playing at being part of a
> labor
> movement could now face the actual, real life situations that
> being part
> of a labor movement entails-- for example, if you strike, you
> don't get
> paid. Surely no one can be naive enough to believe that you
> could
> simply strike without there being some consequences as a result
> of this
> behavior? I mean other than a tan, and a couple of free picnic
> lunches.
>
> The UAW/GSEU leadership should be applauding this memo, while
> fearing
> the repercussions it entails. It is easy to wave a sign, to sign
> a
> card, to pledge nominal support for an organization when NOTHING
> is
> required on your part. What will be interesting is to see how
> the
> UAW/GSEU's supporters shake out after the first wave of fear
> sweeps
> through the lukewarm rank and file and separates the hard-core
> fringe
> from the moderate base or as this wave serves to galvanize this
> overwhelming support the UAW keeps alluding to.
>
> The University doesn't consider us employees, ergo there are no
> terms of
> employment.
>
> Your advisor and the committee in your field decide whether you
> advance
> based on you work. Who has been denied professional
> opportunities
> because of their union stance? That would be headline news in
> the
> UAW/GSEU email newsletter, and I would be funded in my own
> personal
> research palace if being hostile to the Union was a criteria for
> such.
>
> Talk to Kessler-Harris about the problems of summer funding and
> ask for
> more transparency in the process from the Department, which, I
> might
> add, determines who gets funded...not Alan Brinkley, Bollinger,
> GSAS, or
> Kevin Murphy.
>
> Jason
>
> Laura wrote:
>
> >
> > To redirect the debate - the point is not whether some people
> hostile
> > to unionization think Brinkley's suggestion to punish strikers
> is not
> > hypocritical. That isn't news and it isn't worth responding
> to.
> >
> > The memo points out exactly how vulnerable we are as graduate
> students
> > working at Columbia.
> >
> > Will you have summer funding next year or have to temp 50 hours
> a week
> > while trying to get your own work done? (nothing new, but now
> > explicitly politicized)
> >
> > Will the administration deny you professional opportunities
> because
> > you assert your rights as a worker?
> >
> > Can the administration change the terms of your employment
> however and
> > whenever they please?
> >
> > Yes, because we don't have a union. yet.
> >
> > ljh