UCD Directives

UC DAVIS:  OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR

November 24, 1998

PLEASE DISSEMINATE BROADLY

DEANS, DIRECTORS, DEPARTMENT CHAIRS, AND CAMPUS ADMINISTATIVE OFFICERS

RE: Anticipated Teaching Assistants Strike

DEAR MEMBERS OF THE CAMPUS COMMUNITY:

I write to describe my perspective regarding the anticipated strike by
graduate student teaching assistants (TAs). The goal of the potential
strike participants is to compel the University of California to enter into
collective bargaining with graduate student instructors.

First and foremost, we recognize the important role played by graduate
students in helping to educate our undergraduates. They are essential to
the undergraduate experience at UC Davis, especially at the lower division
level. We also recognize that it must be our intention, in the event of a
strike, to do everything we reasonably can to ensure that the strike does
not harm undergraduates. Therefore, while the responsibility to teach
undergraduates rests primarily and finally with the faculty, we are, above
all, hopeful that TAs will meet their obligations to undergraduates.
Whether one is a TA or an undergraduate, the fundamental reason for
attending any university is to be educated in a supportive environment. In
accepting their positions, TAs make an important commitment, and many
undergraduates are depending on them for instruction and grading.

Vice Provost Dale and Senate Vice Chair Vohs have written to the campus at
large on this subject. Vice Provosts Klein and Dale have for the past two
weeks been meeting with deans, chairs, and directors of the units
responsible for undergraduate education to discuss ways in which we can
meet our instructional obligations to undergraduates in the event of a
strike. Deans, in turn, have been working with their chairs, and chairs
with their faculty to continue planning for the delivery of instruction and
the grading of assignments. The reports we are receiving make it clear that
most faculty feel a strong obligation to make sure that our undergraduates
are not disadvantaged by the strike. Some, though, and not unreasonably,
have asked why the Office of the President is assuming its current stance
regarding teaching assistant unionization. There are two reasons -- one a
legal matter, the second based on principles.

* Our legal circumstance. The 1992 California Court of Appeals decision
that Graduate Student Instructors are not employees under the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) is still the law. This
means that under the existing law TAs do not have the legal right to
collective bargaining. Contrary to much of what you've read on this issue,
our UC attorneys inform us that neither the President of the University nor
its individual chancellors can ignore this legal ruling and unilaterally
recognize TA rights to collective bargaining.

* Matters of principle. Teaching Assistantships (TAships) are provided to
graduate students as a means of financial support while those students are
pursuing their degrees. The TAships are apprenticeships in which graduate
students prepare themselves for college and university teaching. The
primary purpose of TAships is, definitively, educational. Only secondarily
are they jobs, with an employer-employee relationship, in the ordinary
sense of the word. An integral part of apprenticeship is the mentoring
relationship between faculty members and graduate student instructors. In
the vast majority of cases, graduate students are coached and guided by
faculty in ways that prepare them for their future roles as teachers and
scholars. The insertion of a union organization between the faculty member
and his or her graduate students will, in the judgment of the UC
administration, significantly undermine that mentoring relationship by
transforming it into a fundamentally adversarial arrangement in which both
parties, restricted by union rules of negotiation, are less likely to speak
openly and candidly to one another.

At a more practical level, the case for unionization, as it is currently
being argued, identifies the academic content of courses as within the
realm of collective bargaining. Should such academic matters be negotiated
with students? To concede this point would compromise the faculty's
authority over what is to be taught in the University.

And so the collective view of the University of California administration
is that it is reasonable to conclude that the adverse effects of
unionization on the exchange of ideas in the university and the relation
between teacher and student outweigh the benefits. I hope that patient
negotiations with faculty and administrators within our present system will
attain the objectives that truly matter to our graduate students.

Regarding this latter point, it is of utmost importance that our faculty,
administrators, graduate students, and undergraduates, whatever their view
of the actions of the TAs, continue to treat one another with respect. We
must aim toward coming out of this action, however it might unfold, still
unified in our educational mission and dedicated to our principles of
community. Dialog among graduate students, faculty, and the administration
must remain open and responsive. Changes and improvements likely are
needed, and we can find solutions, but a strike that disrupts the
educational process is not in the best interest of the academic community. 

Nor is a strike the appropriate or most effective means for securing a
change in HEERA law that does not currently include teaching assistants
among those entitled to collective bargaining. The appropriate means is to
seek a change in that law through an appeal to the Legislature.

In the meantime, we remain committed to working with all of our graduate
students to resolve issues to the benefit of the overall University community.

Larry N. Vanderhoef
Chancellor

98-138

Office of the Chancellor | Contact Information | Current Issues | Speaking Out | Staff and Organization | Philosophy of Purpose | Principles of Community | Administrative Resources Modified: 12/14/2006 12:22:43 PM Comments: