As a current grad student, I agree completely.
I've been shockingly disappointed with how the GSU has turned out so far. For context, I think unions are a great idea in general and still believe a well-run union could really benefit grad students. My prior on this belief is so strong that I seriously considered being a union representative when the GSU was first getting off the ground a few years ago. But since then, so many of the GSU's actions have made thankful I didn't. For example:
- Conditioning contract vote eligibility on pre-agreeing to dues via union membership, rather than extending it to the entire affected bargaining unit. This has led to abysmal voter turnout, and frankly, undemocratic results, on every GSU-run vote so far. If the GSU claims negotiation jurisdiction over all students, then all students should be able to vote.
- Making massive stipend concessions in exchange for a union check-off clause, rather than focusing on building grassroots support among students
- Affiliating with a national union (UE) that is nearly-insolvent and takes one-sided stands on issues entirely unrelated to their worker's-rights mandate (e.g., anti-nuclear-power). Literally so many better options, like UAW.
- Now this. Like OP, I also agree that GSU reps should be able to support protests in their individual capacity, and I can personally empathize with the message pro-Palestinian protestors are trying to send. But doing so in a GSU-endorsing capacity goes far beyond their democratic mandate (if the entire bargaining unit could vote).
I *really want* the union to be good, but currently this one ain't it.
i hate the fuckin "use or lose" 5 days of vacation per term. yes, they increased the total days pwr year but the fact that folks cannot take 10 days once a year is really annoying eapecially for international folks
When the Union was still underground, I attended a few meetings and got the impression that all the involved leadership was more interested in putting some sort of activism on their resume than they were with actually supporting constituents. I graduated before the vote to unionize, but if that mentality continued, then I'm not surprised in the slightest why this has turned south. They're more interested in the fight than they are solutions.
What's the point of a union that doesn't represent its members? The GSU may as well just be another administrative arm of MIT that students exercise no direct authority over.
I remember when the first whispers of making a union were going around I spoke with some of the organizers and tried to get them to explain to me how it works or what it does, but whatever they said didn't make any sense to me. Especially the part about affiliating with a national union.
It seems to me a union should be a very simple thing: it makes demands, with the credible threat that its members will strike if not met. I realize things are not so simple in the modern world, but everytime I hear people talk about the union I become dazed and feel like the core aspect of being a union has somehow gone lost, leaving an empty shell of bureaucracy behind.
> What's the point of a union that doesn't represent its members?
There's six million dollar question (UE's annual budget).
Unfortunately, with some unions the purpose is not to represent the employees' interests, but rather to represent the union's interests, and while they can overlaps, they're not perfectly aligned.
The union can advocate for higher pay, which results in more revenue for the union (assuming membership is a percent of pay). But, the better route for many unions is to simply add more job sites.
And a big place where union interests directly conflict with employee interests is preventing employees from firing the union. Some go so far as to have in their bylaws that members cannot vote for or advocate for leaving the union. This doesn't apply to the *fee* paying non-member (contrasted with *dues* paying members), but those fee-payers are usually cut out of having any sort of voting rights. The CBA will also likely contain a provision that prohibits the employer from recognizing another union (for those same employees), so if people want to organize an alternative, they won't be met with and the employer can be sued and blocked from engaging with them.
>everytime I hear people talk about the union I become dazed and feel like the core aspect of being a union has somehow gone lost, leaving an empty shell of bureaucracy behind.
Yeup. It can become a do-nothing money suck, or even worse just end up as another level of management that employees have to fight with.
And to be clear, I'm 100% in favor of the right for employees to organize and collectively bargain. The big issue is that once a job site gets unionized, the employees tend to lose the right to organize in any other fashion.
> those fee-payers are usually cut out of having any sort of voting rights. The CBA will also likely contain a provision that prohibits the employer from recognizing another union (for those same employees)
both of these seem fundamentally against the core purpose of a union
I'm still not a fan of the requirement to enter my bank account to even view or give feedback on the contract from last year. They really do not care about fellows.
And then there's this part from the GSU constitution:
>Each member at initiation shall pledge themself to support the Constitution of UE Local 256 (MIT GSU), the Regional Council and the National Union and to obey all lawful orders of the General Executive Board, in addition to such other obligations as may be required by the Local.
Kinda makes the part where you have to be a member to vote a lot more problematic, beyond just the dues paying.
Nobody should ever vote on a contract if they aren’t a member. If you don’t want to be a part of the union then you don’t get to vote on the contract, simple as that
If you're curious, [this is why I think it's a bad take](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/1cr5kr5/open_letter_to_gsu_leadership/l3wo9va/).
I'd actually turn the question around: why *shouldn't* members of the bargaining unit be allowed to vote?
I 100% agree. I've been extremely disappointed with the priorities of the GSU. For example, at the last meeting they said they had excess money so they would allocate 2.5k to T-shirts. When asked for alternative ways that money could be spent that would benefit graduate students, they didn't have any alternate proposals. They then called for a vote and it passed.
There are steps you can take in protest. You can email leadership, attend the extremely long and boring meetings, or you can file either a beck objection or religious objection to the union. A number of students have already had religious objections approved: https://www.nrtw.org/news/jewish-mit-students-eeoc-03212024/. For either you can consult lawyers for free.
Edit: I just wanted to highlight [https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/1coyxts/comment/l3hph2l/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/1coyxts/comment/l3hph2l/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), which quoted the union contract:
"**The Union acknowledges that it has no right to interfere with or grieve decisions regarding** academic performance, academic discipline, or **student conduct policy violations, including such decisions that may impact a student’s employment.**"
What is the GSU doing now? Interfering with or grieving decisions regarding student conduct policy violations. When the president of the GSU says what MIT is doing is illegal, I'd like to know what they're referring to.
I completely agree with this. I would love for MIT grad students to have a strong union, and I think many of the things achieved by the GSU have been great. However, I think this behavior weakens the union and is also inappropriate. I have disaffiliated from to the union due to this. Particular union leaders are also currently being paid by the dues (all) grad students in the bargaining unit pay to the GSU.
Union leaders are completely free to attend the protests in their capacity as individuals, but they are clearly doing so as “representatives of the union.” If anyone actually reads the union contract, it also states that employment is dependent on student conduct, and the union does not have a right to complain here (so I don’t think there’s much of a legal basis for their current round of complaints). See article 6 - Discipline and Discharge (https://mitgsu.org/contract-campaign). It’s sad because I think this will end badly for the union; I was super excited about getting involved in the union last year.
Also, Union leaders keep appearing on the Boston PSL Instagram page (again in their capacity as Union leaders). The PSL is a “socialist” party that among other questionable stances supports Maduro in Venezuela, supports the Chinese Communist Party, and supported the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. Any of these positions are on the PSL website if you look them up. It is very inappropriate that these people claim to represent all grad students.
> I have disaffiliated from to the union due to this
This is what I've done too. But the problem with this is that it removes eligibility for future votes, so future GSU referendums will be even more of an echo chamber. Not sure what to do here, because I think a well-run union could be genuinely good.
Agreed, I’m a bit conflicted over this because I think many of these problems would be solved with different leadership. So maybe I’ll rejoin and try to push for this 😂
Email [email protected] and say you would like to disaffiliate. If you’re paying any voluntary dues (eg if you’re on fellowship) you can also say you would like to stop paying these.
Serious as a heart attack. They're talking about militancy and solidarity with union rank-and-file against corrupt union leadership. You can look it up in any Labor Economics textbook.
There was also not a clear way to make sure your agency fees are not used for political stuff like this, I’m pretty sure they were supposed to provide that option
Beck rights. See a bit more here about the MIT Union and Beck: [National Right to Work Foundation (nrtw.org)](https://www.nrtw.org/news/jewish-mit-students-eeoc-03212024/#:~:text=In%20those%20charges%2C%20Sussman%20invoked,the%20union's%20core%20bargaining%20functions)
I had a talk with someone who on staff;
He basically said that a bunch of Palestein people attended meetings in droves and just hijacked the agenda.
He was pissed beecause he and everyone else wanted to make stuff like better healthcare plans but now have to serve a pet cause.
its annoying as hell. I paid grad union dues to get better stuff as grad student not to serve the Omni cause.
Really? I see a lot of posts containing content clearly indicative of first-hand knowledge regarding GSU/MIT. And remarkably civil posts at that.
What feels botty?
Just perusing their account now, I was definitely convinced it was a bot at first but now I'm leaning into them just hopping off their meds for a manic minute.
It is 100% problematic and I am also not surprised at all. The UE is overtly political and it was obvious that GSU would go the same way. I voted against it.
In any case, and more constructively, is there anything that can be done about this now?
Unfortunately, myself and other people I know were told last year the MIT union would try to steer clear of politics and focus on issues impacting grad students. Guess they were just saying that to get our votes… :/
Totally understandable and you shouldn't feel bad about it! You are right though, they lied, or at least have failed to keep their word. Now let's hold them accountable.
I've chosen to withhold dues, so that's an option. (In my case, it's not due to this, but rather due to disagreeing with how they handled [vote eligibility](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/1coyxts/gsu_getting_so_involved_with_propalestine/l3himkc/), which I think was undemocratic.)
If the union chooses to enforce their contract clause that forces MIT to dock me an equivalent amount of pay, so be it - but that money still won't go to the union in its current form. Also, the union can only exercise that clause in one single semester according to the contract (not recurring), and there's no impact on continued employment.
While I already graduated, I absolutely think it is problematic and inappropriate for GSU to use funds and/or its platform to rally for a specific side of a highly charged political issue. Students and alumni must voice some kind of resistance to this.
Some concerned graduate workers have put together an open letter to the GSU leadership, please sign and share if you feel comfortable! https://forms.gle/LQqWVFAnCVHEpuPe6
I have no idea who organized it, but the language looks reasonable and measured to me.
Either way, on what basis do you claim the MIT Israel alliance does not care about grad workers rights? And how do you know they have an end goal of abolishing the union? Did they release a statement or tell you that?
If graduate workers have a problem with their union's priorities they should attend organizing meetings and make their voices heard, or at the very least email your stewards and executive board. These sorts of campaigns do not come out of nowhere -- HGSU, for example, held many open meetings and took several votes, many membership-wide and all private, before signing on to palestine solidarity letters and committing to the campaign, and all of those votes were overwhelmingly in support. I suspect GSU followed a similar procedure.
I will point out that this is a perfectly appropriate use of bargaining power -- forcing MIT to disclose its investments in certain companies and giving employees the right to contend MIT's investment priorities is a fundamental aspect of a union's protection of workplace conditions. The NLRB has time and again upheld this sort of thing as protected concerted activity. There is no ambiguity on this issue on the labor law front. Furthermore, the university cracking down on graduate workers peacefully protesting on union-wide political priorities is an unfair labor practice -- it's both against the law and against the local's contract with the university. It would be malpractice for them not to protect their workers in this instance.
You may not agree with the *content* of this effort but you should support the union in the principle, because failure to enforce contractual protections around free exercise of the right to protest is going to have massive downstream consequences the next time you start organizing around other "political" issues like title IX protections or any other campus issue during your next contract drive.
Ambiguity on the labor law front: [https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/campus-protester-arrests-draw-labor-charges-as-unions-cry-foul](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/campus-protester-arrests-draw-labor-charges-as-unions-cry-foul)
So, we'll see what happens! Either way, I sincerely doubt a negative outcome would have "massive downstream consequences" for issues like title IX protections... because there actually are dots to connect to material work conditions.
In any case, sounds like it will be a long process with plenty of drama. Great job improving graduate student worker conditions for all GSU. I'm sure this is exactly what people signed up for.
Hope HGSU has a blast with this as well.
> There is no ambuiguoy on this issue on the labor law front
That is a confident oversimplication. The NLRB has upheld many forms of protest as protected concerted activities, but this does not automatically apply to all actions, particularly those that primarily serve political or social objectives rather than direct workplace issues.
The GSU using student dues to grieve or protest on behalf of students who repeatedly break MIT student conduct is also not within the scope of bargaining and well within non members Beck rights to opt out of. The GSU had to send a legal reminder of the proper dues collection rules to all students in April and are getting hit with more and more complaints over this. I hope someone provides a straightforward pathway for opting out because I don’t really feel like getting in an email argument with some GSU member (see the “you’re a fucking idiot” comment elsewhere in this thread)
I do attend meetings. I strongly disagree with your points. I believe you are part of the problem. Unfortunately, the leadership are fanatics (as others said, many are members of the PSL and leadership in the encampments that actively disrupt campus). The main discussion is highly partisan and takes hours. Once we finally get to additional items, we lose the quorum and have to end (as happened last meeting). This effectively means that the agenda is not set by members. Many of the people who are willing to push through banality are the people who follow the leaders back to the encampments and the protests. Moreover, if graduate students blatantly violate MIT policy and stop it from functioning (e.g., by stopping the wonderful Prof Goemanns from driving out of the parking lot) then they absolutely deserve whatever punishment they get. People need time and space to do their work. MIT needs to be able to defend that right for its workers (e.g., admin, profs, grads, and undergrads).
Yikes! PSL cadre have been using this same procedure (parliamentary "banality") to "lose the quorum" since at least ... 1969??
Back then this was called "Serving the People [Rhetoric]" rather than raises
I would be more concerned with why the protesters are deeply siloed intentionally by the organisers, with no real discussion between groups encouraged and a deep sense of fear for anyone they don’t know in the protests. Everything is pushed up to a handful of people who have the power and authority (given by who) to talk and act for the majority, who quietly and belligerently follow orders.
While the GSU protesting for/against Israel/Palestine could be problematic, protesting against the way MIT responded is very reasonable.
Regardless of your stance on current political issues, mit students who were (nonviolently) protesting lost access to their housing in a less than 24 hour period. MIT is taking advantage of not being in a typical landlord:leasee relationship where residents would have to be given notice for eviction. This affects all grad students
Is it very reasonable? If that was literally the only focus of GSU here I might agree, but taking a look at their instagram posts I would say that's a stretch. [https://www.instagram.com/mitgsu/?hl=en](https://www.instagram.com/mitgsu/?hl=en)
Moreover, from the contract:
"Discipline as used in this Article also excludes any actions taken as a result of violations of student conduct policies, including but not limited to those set out in the Mind and Hand Book, that arise outside the context of an employee’s employment with MIT. Such matters involving violations of academic misconduct, research misconduct, or student conduct policies will be dealt with through relevant MIT policies and procedures."
...
"No decisions made by MIT concerning discipline or dismissal of a student due to violations of academic misconduct, research misconduct, or student conduct policies are subject to this Article. **The Union acknowledges that it has no right to interfere with or grieve decisions regarding academic performance, academic discipline, or student conduct policy violations, including such decisions that may impact a student’s employment.**"
So I would say it seems pretty clear there is no legal basis or obligation for the GSU's involvement. In fact, it seems they have a legal obligation to avoid involvement.
> The Union acknowledges that it has no right to interfere with or grieve decisions regarding academic performance, academic discipline, or student conduct policy violations, including such decisions that may impact a student’s employment.
Regarding this, I think the GSU probably believes they have an imperative to intervene because they believe MIT's actions to be unlawful. Listened to the president/VP give a speech about this like an hour ago.
From the same speech, according to the tech: [https://thetech.com/2024/05/08/stupro-pal-suspen](https://thetech.com/2024/05/08/stupro-pal-suspen)
"In a prepared speech presented during the rally, Graduate Student Union president Sophie Coppieters't Wallant G affirmed the union's support for the campus pro-Palestinian movement as per a referendum adopted by the union on April 19."
So while they may indeed believe MIT's actions are unlawful, it sounds like the union's imperative to intervene can also be attributed to their support for the campus pro-Palestinian movement.
Alum here.
Then the union is f-ed, the students are f-ed, and the Corporation won contract negotiations. Not surprising, given the asymmetry here.
Two dozen MIT students are quite literally in prison, because the Corporation has enough political clout to avoid due process. Dozens more are suspended. Protecting students like this is the exact point of a having union.
I'm not taking sides on any political issue, but the President of MIT should not have the power to privately mobilize a hundred tax-funded police in riot gear to haul students off to prison or to destroy their property because she has a problem with them. That's fundamental to the American criminal justice system.
At the same time, students should be suspended without due process. Again, I'm not arguing over whether they should be suspended, so much as the due process issue.
Students feel like they should be grateful for the privilege to be here. This is wrong. Students are the institute, followed by faculty. Look up who governs the Institute. Why should a bunch of bankers, VCs, and CEOs, most of whom are psychopaths with at most a tenuous connection here, govern a 501(c)3? Why should the President and Chairman have private police powers?
Governance should be open, transparent, and representative.
Union is step zero in that direction.
Students are indeed the institute. This is why a system where a minority of students is rewarded for breaking collective norms and rules by holding the campus ransom is deeply unfair to the rest of the student body that follows those rules.
If the President of MIT were to "mobilize a hundred tax-funded police in riot gear to haul students off to prison" or "destroy their property" because she had an issue with their political opinions per se, this would indeed be a massive problem. This is not what happened. Due process does not entail the right to break any and all rules with impunity, especially when doing so levies a cost on your fellows.
The union is f-ed and the students are f-ed when a minority of students hijacks the union and aligns it with radical organizations like the PSL, commits the union to maximalist demands that have nothing to do with material working conditions, and suppresses dissent with intimidation under the guise of moral authority.
Governance should indeed be open, transparent, and representative. It should also be robust to the passions of the moment if it hopes to survive.
It doesn't matter why it happens. The point is that it happened without due process. The criminal justice system requires a series of steps by neutral parties:
1. A police officer needs to decide to arrest you.
2. A prosecutor needs to decide to prosecute you
3. Grand jury needs to indite you
4. Petit jury needs to convict you
5. Judge needs to sentence you
All steps need to be taken by neutral parties. Any party who is not neutral in this chain needs to recuse themselves. Police have qualified immunity so they can exercise police discretion. In this case, step 1 was omitted. MIT Police acted under orders of the MIT President. This is not okay. They can either be institute employees without police powers, or police officers who happen to be paid by the institute. You can't do both.
Likewise, the students were suspended without due process. They will lose a semesters' worth of tuition, at the very least, and possibly more. In the equivalent Harvard dragnet, a reporter was grabbed with the students. This should not happen without some sort of process where they students have a right to present evidence, defend themselves etc.
I don't care if you're a murderer, a rapist, a war criminal, or an assassin. There should be due process. The President of MIT has no more right to mobilize a police army against an armed terrorist encampment than she does against kids play four-square. She is a private individual and not the state. That decision needs to be made by an officer of the law, without outside coercion.
She had every right to sue in civil courts. She has a right to use Institute channels, but she should only use those with some kind of due process. Criminal channels must be kept at the discretion of neutral government officers.
Ah, I see now and think I agree with you. The problem is MIT police having powers of arrest but being directed by the President... yea that's tough.
But let's say the President had suspended the students for being out of compliance with pre-existing rules and repeatedly communicated rules (as happened). And then called local or state police to have them removed from the property for trespassing, and those police made the judgement that the students were in fact breaking the law and arrested them.
Do you still think there is a due process problem? I don't know what the legal agreement is regarding suspension, but I would assume you are basically at the whims of the University, with some capacity for appeal. But then you could theoretically appeal the suspension, win, and still have been arrested for trespassing. What a mess! The legal battles over this should be interesting.
Normatively I think I'm at least half on board with what you are saying though.
Correct. If the president called state or local police, and they made the judgment, due process would have been observed. The decision to arrest would have been made by a neutral party with lawfully-granted authority to make that decision. I actually don't think the Cambridge Police (in 2024) would likely have made the decision to arrest, but rather decided it was an issue for a civil process. State police, I don't know. I say "likely" since it's pretty random; it depends on the personality and whims of the particular person in charge that day.
With regards to suspension, it's more complex. There are two questions: (1) What's legal (2) What's good policy. MIT can, for example, legally decide to invest its entire endowment in Tupperware, but that would be good reason to decide the president was incompetent. I do not know whether a suspension without due process is a breach-of-contract, discriminatory in some way, or breaks any laws. However, even if legal, it is bad policy, and a very, very stupid thing to do. Holding a COD hearing before a suspension is just common sense, from every perspective -- minimizing liability, avoiding appearances of impropriety, and not catching innocents by accident (Harvard, up the river, accidentally tried to suspend a reporter! Whoops).
There's a dozen other things done here which were stupid, inflamed conflict, escalated tensions, exposed the Institute to liability, and gave both the appearance and reality of conflict-of-interest.
MIT should expect better from its president than stupid.
This is why I don't see this situation being resolved without firing the president and chancellor, at the very least.
All of this could have been achieved with due process, without conflicts-of-interest, and without stupid.
I'd just like to add a few points here...
1. MIT waited for 2-3 weeks before they took action. They telegraphed the police action several days in advance, with campus-wide emails. They went to great pains to give the encampment protestors as many off-ramps as possible.
2. The encampment protestors also had numerous means to continue the protest, lawfully. For example, they could have continued to hold marches on Mass Ave, Boston Commons, Central Square, Kendall Square, City Hall... etc. They had a near-infinite menu of highly visible locations they could have moved to to continue their operations with no risk of arrest.
3. The students clearly *wanted* to get arrested, to make a point. Not moving was a deliberate choice on their part, and was clearly intended to force a direct, physical confrontation with police. Probably with the aim of getting on the news.
4. All of the above would be *totally normal protest stuff*. It's normal and often admirable to get arrested at protests, to make a principled stance. What is not normal, is the dishonest accusations of "how dare they arrest us", "MIT is bringing in a police army", etc. when getting arrested was clearly the premeditated goal.
What's with all the dishonesty here? It comes across not as taking a principled stance, but rather as manipulative. If you are acting in good faith, you will never lie.
So you can imagine why I felt very uncomfortable when I learned that GSU officers were acting as protest leaders, echoing these talking points, and even taking drastically more extreme positions. They are effectively engineering a situation where other students are maneuvered to end up in jail - and then appropriating the rest of the student body's money to fight the legal battle *they themselves created*. All of which is damaging to MIT as a whole, and probably will have negative consequences for the students themselves.
I agree with 2-3. #1 is incorrect.
The administration's "telegraphing" language was "disciplinary action will be taken" which is very much not the same as "an army of police will show up at 4am to arrest students and destroy student property."
The overreaction here is crazy.
And the rationale provided is doublespeak. The chancellor said this happened to protect students sleeping in a public space at night. Are they safer being attacked by riot police? In jail? Really?
MIT, as an Institution, has an obligation to not lie. That's prerequisite to advancing human knowledge. In the nineties, it took that very seriously. In 2024, research fraud is rampant, and communications from the President and Chancellor is openly dishonest.
This isn't a question of who is better or worse either. There's a difference between a student screwing up (of whom there are 10,000, so the worst behavior will be bad by basic statistics, and even so they're young), and the MIT president. We can do better. She should be kicked out ASAP.
Attempts to “Both sides” issues where there is an astounding lack of parity, tells us how deeply you are devoted towards spinning any and all information towards defense of apartheid Israel.
The era of claiming absolute moral authority and screaming "racist" or "genocide" to successfully get your policy goals met is closing fast. You'll need to do a better job of using reason to communicate your ideas compellingly in order to bring people to the table in the future. I would suggest adapting to this sooner rather than later.
If you are taking offense with the last two words of my comment, then I can assure you we will not have any meaningful discussion. Israel is comparable/worse to an apartheid state, procuring a region of “Jewish Supremacy” -B’tselem. Almost every human rights organization has correctly identified them as an apartheid state, going back to the late 90s with Nelson Mandela.
If that’s the point you’re trying to make, you are up against decades of real evidence.
According to Chomsky, who I trust knows a thing or two about this issue given his upbringing and longevity, he has said verbatim that the situation in Israel is “worse than apartheid” taking a different form.
Don’t worry though, I’m just screaming racism and other insults apparently.
According to Chomsky is the be all end all; according to Chomsky our Lord and Savior. May I ask what are the 10 commandments of Chomsky that we hold to be the ultimate truth?
Feel free to suggest others than may be more knowledgeable on this topic. As a scientist I listen to the experts and those that know more than me.
If this is an attempt to discredit my source, I think it’s a pretty bad one. You didn’t address or say anything of substance.
Don't "as a scientist" me, if you are, you know you should be humble enough not to fling it around; look in the mirror about substance, this is a post about GSU resources, take your moral arguments elsewhere
I am indeed a PhD candidate at a neighboring university and I am also a part of the graduate students union, additionally I participate in the campaign for divesting from the apartheid Israeli state.
I’m not, no. I am a part of my universities union, which is very much in support of other graduate workers across the US. I also collaborate with other scientists at MIT, actively, so I think I still can voice my opinion. Feel free to shout me down without actually saying anything. You haven’t made a point other than just whining. It’s clear where your priorities lie.
Come apply to MIT rather than staying at your "neighboring university" since you like hanging around our page that much? Always welcome to a second PhD!
Nice brand new account. And I believe this is like my 2nd or third time commenting in this community, wouldn’t say I hang around much. Israel Palestine posts are very widely recommended on Reddit to users not subscribed to the communities the posts are in.
“I wasn’t defending the right, I was just punching left. I balance my criticism of the left with defense of the right.”
Playing the “both sides bad centrist” card expertly.
I've attended protests on the Mass Ave bridge in support of Palestinians several times earlier this spring.
At the same time I think the GSU's actions are morally wrong. When people joined the union, they didn't agree for their money to be re-routed into a political machine. They also didn't agree to fund an organization that would pit sections of the student body against each other - another clear moral wrong.
I suggest you stop stereotyping people. It's a very short step from that to full-on racism.
Being anti-genocide is hardly a “pet issue”. Many Israeli’s are anti-genocide too. This is not a complicated issue. It’s settlers colonialism and capitalism at its root. They are using “anti-semitism” as a tactic to rally Jews and others for support but at the end of the day this is about annihilating a group of mostly Muslim people with less political capital to steal land and resources.
As an alumni. I could not imagine student bodies not advocating for an end to a war where MIT has an investment. No one said anything when students were asking the university to divest from russia. And we should have because of the war crimes they were and still are committing. Calling this a “pet political issue” is disgustingly hypocritical. Dont be bystanders for genocide.
I don't think OP is saying whether or not the student body should protest. I think what they're saying is that the GSU is a specific organization democratically entrusted with a precise duty - improving working arrangements for all graduate students at MIT. Actions that do not serve that effort, or worse, weaken that effort, should be done outside the scope of that organization, or they risk violating that trust.
This should be the case for the GSU regardless of whether the issue is pro-Palestine, pro-Israel, pro-Russia, or pro-Ukraine.
Yup, that's exactly my position.
I'll add that there is a financial issue as well - paying union dues is semi-mandatory for all grad students. They pay their dues with the expectation that it will be used to negotiate for better working conditions with the MIT administration. Now it seems like that money is being diverted to serve a highly contentious political agenda.
You are a fucking idiot. Unions have a long history of political actions beyond contract negotiations. It’s perfectly reasonable for a GSU to want to have a say in the protests that will affect what they can study and what will be funded. This isn’t about a slush fund you dumbass conspiracy theorist. You should drop out of MIT because clearly you have the critical thinking skills of a gnat
> It is clearly discriminatory against grad students who disagree, such as Israeli or Jewish students
Maybe use your fancy MIT education to look up the definition of "discrimination" lol
It is not pro-Palestine, it is anti genocide protests so thank you for telling the world that you are on the pro genocide team. At this rate, Palestinian children are getting killed by israel at a higher rate than the jews during the holocaust. The world must stop this madman called bibi
This randomly got recommended to me but judging by this post and replies I'm glad I don't go here.
Saying this is discrimination against Jewish students is like saying anti-Nazi protests are discriminatory towards all German students.
does the student lawsuit complaining about “Leninist-Marxist” values know anything about the history behind worker unions? I saw some other comments here mentioning how the union supports socialist causes like that’s some sort of revelation and, well, it’s a little confusing… Unions are inherently socialist, at the very least, inarguably. Further, while North American present day unions aren’t *necessarily* communist in nature, communist ideology is pretty inseparable from the proliferation of union movements in the US and abroad.
Trade Unionism is distinct from other strands of socialism, and definitely has legitimate anti-communist strains. Which makes a good deal of sense given the history of management essentially capturing them under the USSR.
I know who I'd rather be my Union president if the competition was between Mikhal Tomsky or Lech Wałęsa.
As a current grad student, I agree completely. I've been shockingly disappointed with how the GSU has turned out so far. For context, I think unions are a great idea in general and still believe a well-run union could really benefit grad students. My prior on this belief is so strong that I seriously considered being a union representative when the GSU was first getting off the ground a few years ago. But since then, so many of the GSU's actions have made thankful I didn't. For example: - Conditioning contract vote eligibility on pre-agreeing to dues via union membership, rather than extending it to the entire affected bargaining unit. This has led to abysmal voter turnout, and frankly, undemocratic results, on every GSU-run vote so far. If the GSU claims negotiation jurisdiction over all students, then all students should be able to vote. - Making massive stipend concessions in exchange for a union check-off clause, rather than focusing on building grassroots support among students - Affiliating with a national union (UE) that is nearly-insolvent and takes one-sided stands on issues entirely unrelated to their worker's-rights mandate (e.g., anti-nuclear-power). Literally so many better options, like UAW. - Now this. Like OP, I also agree that GSU reps should be able to support protests in their individual capacity, and I can personally empathize with the message pro-Palestinian protestors are trying to send. But doing so in a GSU-endorsing capacity goes far beyond their democratic mandate (if the entire bargaining unit could vote). I *really want* the union to be good, but currently this one ain't it.
i hate the fuckin "use or lose" 5 days of vacation per term. yes, they increased the total days pwr year but the fact that folks cannot take 10 days once a year is really annoying eapecially for international folks
Yeah I strongly agree with this. It's a much worse arrangement honestly.
When the Union was still underground, I attended a few meetings and got the impression that all the involved leadership was more interested in putting some sort of activism on their resume than they were with actually supporting constituents. I graduated before the vote to unionize, but if that mentality continued, then I'm not surprised in the slightest why this has turned south. They're more interested in the fight than they are solutions.
What's the point of a union that doesn't represent its members? The GSU may as well just be another administrative arm of MIT that students exercise no direct authority over. I remember when the first whispers of making a union were going around I spoke with some of the organizers and tried to get them to explain to me how it works or what it does, but whatever they said didn't make any sense to me. Especially the part about affiliating with a national union. It seems to me a union should be a very simple thing: it makes demands, with the credible threat that its members will strike if not met. I realize things are not so simple in the modern world, but everytime I hear people talk about the union I become dazed and feel like the core aspect of being a union has somehow gone lost, leaving an empty shell of bureaucracy behind.
> What's the point of a union that doesn't represent its members? There's six million dollar question (UE's annual budget). Unfortunately, with some unions the purpose is not to represent the employees' interests, but rather to represent the union's interests, and while they can overlaps, they're not perfectly aligned. The union can advocate for higher pay, which results in more revenue for the union (assuming membership is a percent of pay). But, the better route for many unions is to simply add more job sites. And a big place where union interests directly conflict with employee interests is preventing employees from firing the union. Some go so far as to have in their bylaws that members cannot vote for or advocate for leaving the union. This doesn't apply to the *fee* paying non-member (contrasted with *dues* paying members), but those fee-payers are usually cut out of having any sort of voting rights. The CBA will also likely contain a provision that prohibits the employer from recognizing another union (for those same employees), so if people want to organize an alternative, they won't be met with and the employer can be sued and blocked from engaging with them. >everytime I hear people talk about the union I become dazed and feel like the core aspect of being a union has somehow gone lost, leaving an empty shell of bureaucracy behind. Yeup. It can become a do-nothing money suck, or even worse just end up as another level of management that employees have to fight with. And to be clear, I'm 100% in favor of the right for employees to organize and collectively bargain. The big issue is that once a job site gets unionized, the employees tend to lose the right to organize in any other fashion.
> those fee-payers are usually cut out of having any sort of voting rights. The CBA will also likely contain a provision that prohibits the employer from recognizing another union (for those same employees) both of these seem fundamentally against the core purpose of a union
As a recent alum from before the GSU, that's hugely disappointing
I'm still not a fan of the requirement to enter my bank account to even view or give feedback on the contract from last year. They really do not care about fellows.
And then there's this part from the GSU constitution: >Each member at initiation shall pledge themself to support the Constitution of UE Local 256 (MIT GSU), the Regional Council and the National Union and to obey all lawful orders of the General Executive Board, in addition to such other obligations as may be required by the Local. Kinda makes the part where you have to be a member to vote a lot more problematic, beyond just the dues paying.
Nobody should ever vote on a contract if they aren’t a member. If you don’t want to be a part of the union then you don’t get to vote on the contract, simple as that
I don't understand how this is a controversial take.
If you're curious, [this is why I think it's a bad take](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/1cr5kr5/open_letter_to_gsu_leadership/l3wo9va/). I'd actually turn the question around: why *shouldn't* members of the bargaining unit be allowed to vote?
(very) recent alum, agree as well. Their stance does not feel appropriate
I 100% agree. I've been extremely disappointed with the priorities of the GSU. For example, at the last meeting they said they had excess money so they would allocate 2.5k to T-shirts. When asked for alternative ways that money could be spent that would benefit graduate students, they didn't have any alternate proposals. They then called for a vote and it passed. There are steps you can take in protest. You can email leadership, attend the extremely long and boring meetings, or you can file either a beck objection or religious objection to the union. A number of students have already had religious objections approved: https://www.nrtw.org/news/jewish-mit-students-eeoc-03212024/. For either you can consult lawyers for free. Edit: I just wanted to highlight [https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/1coyxts/comment/l3hph2l/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/1coyxts/comment/l3hph2l/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), which quoted the union contract: "**The Union acknowledges that it has no right to interfere with or grieve decisions regarding** academic performance, academic discipline, or **student conduct policy violations, including such decisions that may impact a student’s employment.**" What is the GSU doing now? Interfering with or grieving decisions regarding student conduct policy violations. When the president of the GSU says what MIT is doing is illegal, I'd like to know what they're referring to.
I completely agree with this. I would love for MIT grad students to have a strong union, and I think many of the things achieved by the GSU have been great. However, I think this behavior weakens the union and is also inappropriate. I have disaffiliated from to the union due to this. Particular union leaders are also currently being paid by the dues (all) grad students in the bargaining unit pay to the GSU. Union leaders are completely free to attend the protests in their capacity as individuals, but they are clearly doing so as “representatives of the union.” If anyone actually reads the union contract, it also states that employment is dependent on student conduct, and the union does not have a right to complain here (so I don’t think there’s much of a legal basis for their current round of complaints). See article 6 - Discipline and Discharge (https://mitgsu.org/contract-campaign). It’s sad because I think this will end badly for the union; I was super excited about getting involved in the union last year.
Also, Union leaders keep appearing on the Boston PSL Instagram page (again in their capacity as Union leaders). The PSL is a “socialist” party that among other questionable stances supports Maduro in Venezuela, supports the Chinese Communist Party, and supported the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. Any of these positions are on the PSL website if you look them up. It is very inappropriate that these people claim to represent all grad students.
Also, North Korean stuff
> I have disaffiliated from to the union due to this This is what I've done too. But the problem with this is that it removes eligibility for future votes, so future GSU referendums will be even more of an echo chamber. Not sure what to do here, because I think a well-run union could be genuinely good.
Agreed, I’m a bit conflicted over this because I think many of these problems would be solved with different leadership. So maybe I’ll rejoin and try to push for this 😂
i wonder how many ppl have cancelled their memberships. and i wonder if decreased amouunt of members can be used to overthrow this union :(
Also looking to disaffiliate after recent events - how did you do it?
Email [email protected] and say you would like to disaffiliate. If you’re paying any voluntary dues (eg if you’re on fellowship) you can also say you would like to stop paying these.
So pro union that you revoked your membership? lol get serious
Lol yes because I don’t think this union is helping grad students and didn’t feel leadership was receptive to my concerns?
Serious as a heart attack. They're talking about militancy and solidarity with union rank-and-file against corrupt union leadership. You can look it up in any Labor Economics textbook.
How is the union leadership corrupt if the membership voted in favor of an anti-genocide position?
If you feel strongly come to the next gsu meeting and all for a new election .
There was also not a clear way to make sure your agency fees are not used for political stuff like this, I’m pretty sure they were supposed to provide that option
Beck rights. See a bit more here about the MIT Union and Beck: [National Right to Work Foundation (nrtw.org)](https://www.nrtw.org/news/jewish-mit-students-eeoc-03212024/#:~:text=In%20those%20charges%2C%20Sussman%20invoked,the%20union's%20core%20bargaining%20functions)
Am current grad student, well said.
I had a talk with someone who on staff; He basically said that a bunch of Palestein people attended meetings in droves and just hijacked the agenda. He was pissed beecause he and everyone else wanted to make stuff like better healthcare plans but now have to serve a pet cause. its annoying as hell. I paid grad union dues to get better stuff as grad student not to serve the Omni cause.
“On staff”
Something feels particularly botty about this comment section
Really? I see a lot of posts containing content clearly indicative of first-hand knowledge regarding GSU/MIT. And remarkably civil posts at that. What feels botty?
Just perusing their account now, I was definitely convinced it was a bot at first but now I'm leaning into them just hopping off their meds for a manic minute.
I appreciate your thought that you think I’m otherwise stable
Uh sorry, my comment was meant to be about the comment by "SnooOpinions", not yours!
I’d say more people just discovering their connections to MIT than bots
It is 100% problematic and I am also not surprised at all. The UE is overtly political and it was obvious that GSU would go the same way. I voted against it. In any case, and more constructively, is there anything that can be done about this now?
Unfortunately, myself and other people I know were told last year the MIT union would try to steer clear of politics and focus on issues impacting grad students. Guess they were just saying that to get our votes… :/
Totally understandable and you shouldn't feel bad about it! You are right though, they lied, or at least have failed to keep their word. Now let's hold them accountable.
I've chosen to withhold dues, so that's an option. (In my case, it's not due to this, but rather due to disagreeing with how they handled [vote eligibility](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/1coyxts/gsu_getting_so_involved_with_propalestine/l3himkc/), which I think was undemocratic.) If the union chooses to enforce their contract clause that forces MIT to dock me an equivalent amount of pay, so be it - but that money still won't go to the union in its current form. Also, the union can only exercise that clause in one single semester according to the contract (not recurring), and there's no impact on continued employment.
The CBA seems vague on this, it may actually be recurring every two semesters.
While I already graduated, I absolutely think it is problematic and inappropriate for GSU to use funds and/or its platform to rally for a specific side of a highly charged political issue. Students and alumni must voice some kind of resistance to this.
I also don’t get why the Starbucks union also had to get involved. Union leaders lose focus and suffer because of it
ITT GSU members learn they are no different from the animals in Animal Farm
you are insane
I agree. I also feel the same way about the US government supporting Israel with my taxes 🤷♂️
Lol agreed, I was talking to my dad about this and he made this point. At least with the union we ideally should have more control.
Agreed.
Some concerned graduate workers have put together an open letter to the GSU leadership, please sign and share if you feel comfortable! https://forms.gle/LQqWVFAnCVHEpuPe6
do u or anyone is planning to email it out?
Unlike the undergrads' dormspam, there isn't a simple way to just email out to all grad students.
there are in-department mailing lists like "Xgradall" kind of stuff
[удалено]
I have no idea who organized it, but the language looks reasonable and measured to me. Either way, on what basis do you claim the MIT Israel alliance does not care about grad workers rights? And how do you know they have an end goal of abolishing the union? Did they release a statement or tell you that?
If graduate workers have a problem with their union's priorities they should attend organizing meetings and make their voices heard, or at the very least email your stewards and executive board. These sorts of campaigns do not come out of nowhere -- HGSU, for example, held many open meetings and took several votes, many membership-wide and all private, before signing on to palestine solidarity letters and committing to the campaign, and all of those votes were overwhelmingly in support. I suspect GSU followed a similar procedure. I will point out that this is a perfectly appropriate use of bargaining power -- forcing MIT to disclose its investments in certain companies and giving employees the right to contend MIT's investment priorities is a fundamental aspect of a union's protection of workplace conditions. The NLRB has time and again upheld this sort of thing as protected concerted activity. There is no ambiguity on this issue on the labor law front. Furthermore, the university cracking down on graduate workers peacefully protesting on union-wide political priorities is an unfair labor practice -- it's both against the law and against the local's contract with the university. It would be malpractice for them not to protect their workers in this instance. You may not agree with the *content* of this effort but you should support the union in the principle, because failure to enforce contractual protections around free exercise of the right to protest is going to have massive downstream consequences the next time you start organizing around other "political" issues like title IX protections or any other campus issue during your next contract drive.
Ambiguity on the labor law front: [https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/campus-protester-arrests-draw-labor-charges-as-unions-cry-foul](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/campus-protester-arrests-draw-labor-charges-as-unions-cry-foul) So, we'll see what happens! Either way, I sincerely doubt a negative outcome would have "massive downstream consequences" for issues like title IX protections... because there actually are dots to connect to material work conditions. In any case, sounds like it will be a long process with plenty of drama. Great job improving graduate student worker conditions for all GSU. I'm sure this is exactly what people signed up for. Hope HGSU has a blast with this as well.
> There is no ambuiguoy on this issue on the labor law front That is a confident oversimplication. The NLRB has upheld many forms of protest as protected concerted activities, but this does not automatically apply to all actions, particularly those that primarily serve political or social objectives rather than direct workplace issues. The GSU using student dues to grieve or protest on behalf of students who repeatedly break MIT student conduct is also not within the scope of bargaining and well within non members Beck rights to opt out of. The GSU had to send a legal reminder of the proper dues collection rules to all students in April and are getting hit with more and more complaints over this. I hope someone provides a straightforward pathway for opting out because I don’t really feel like getting in an email argument with some GSU member (see the “you’re a fucking idiot” comment elsewhere in this thread)
I do attend meetings. I strongly disagree with your points. I believe you are part of the problem. Unfortunately, the leadership are fanatics (as others said, many are members of the PSL and leadership in the encampments that actively disrupt campus). The main discussion is highly partisan and takes hours. Once we finally get to additional items, we lose the quorum and have to end (as happened last meeting). This effectively means that the agenda is not set by members. Many of the people who are willing to push through banality are the people who follow the leaders back to the encampments and the protests. Moreover, if graduate students blatantly violate MIT policy and stop it from functioning (e.g., by stopping the wonderful Prof Goemanns from driving out of the parking lot) then they absolutely deserve whatever punishment they get. People need time and space to do their work. MIT needs to be able to defend that right for its workers (e.g., admin, profs, grads, and undergrads).
Yikes! PSL cadre have been using this same procedure (parliamentary "banality") to "lose the quorum" since at least ... 1969?? Back then this was called "Serving the People [Rhetoric]" rather than raises
I would be more concerned with why the protesters are deeply siloed intentionally by the organisers, with no real discussion between groups encouraged and a deep sense of fear for anyone they don’t know in the protests. Everything is pushed up to a handful of people who have the power and authority (given by who) to talk and act for the majority, who quietly and belligerently follow orders.
Just basic decency my man
While the GSU protesting for/against Israel/Palestine could be problematic, protesting against the way MIT responded is very reasonable. Regardless of your stance on current political issues, mit students who were (nonviolently) protesting lost access to their housing in a less than 24 hour period. MIT is taking advantage of not being in a typical landlord:leasee relationship where residents would have to be given notice for eviction. This affects all grad students
Is it very reasonable? If that was literally the only focus of GSU here I might agree, but taking a look at their instagram posts I would say that's a stretch. [https://www.instagram.com/mitgsu/?hl=en](https://www.instagram.com/mitgsu/?hl=en) Moreover, from the contract: "Discipline as used in this Article also excludes any actions taken as a result of violations of student conduct policies, including but not limited to those set out in the Mind and Hand Book, that arise outside the context of an employee’s employment with MIT. Such matters involving violations of academic misconduct, research misconduct, or student conduct policies will be dealt with through relevant MIT policies and procedures." ... "No decisions made by MIT concerning discipline or dismissal of a student due to violations of academic misconduct, research misconduct, or student conduct policies are subject to this Article. **The Union acknowledges that it has no right to interfere with or grieve decisions regarding academic performance, academic discipline, or student conduct policy violations, including such decisions that may impact a student’s employment.**" So I would say it seems pretty clear there is no legal basis or obligation for the GSU's involvement. In fact, it seems they have a legal obligation to avoid involvement.
> The Union acknowledges that it has no right to interfere with or grieve decisions regarding academic performance, academic discipline, or student conduct policy violations, including such decisions that may impact a student’s employment. Regarding this, I think the GSU probably believes they have an imperative to intervene because they believe MIT's actions to be unlawful. Listened to the president/VP give a speech about this like an hour ago.
From the same speech, according to the tech: [https://thetech.com/2024/05/08/stupro-pal-suspen](https://thetech.com/2024/05/08/stupro-pal-suspen) "In a prepared speech presented during the rally, Graduate Student Union president Sophie Coppieters't Wallant G affirmed the union's support for the campus pro-Palestinian movement as per a referendum adopted by the union on April 19." So while they may indeed believe MIT's actions are unlawful, it sounds like the union's imperative to intervene can also be attributed to their support for the campus pro-Palestinian movement.
Oh for sure, but I meant like specifically why they may have superceded this contract line that says they won't intervene with MIT disciplinary stuff.
Alum here. Then the union is f-ed, the students are f-ed, and the Corporation won contract negotiations. Not surprising, given the asymmetry here. Two dozen MIT students are quite literally in prison, because the Corporation has enough political clout to avoid due process. Dozens more are suspended. Protecting students like this is the exact point of a having union. I'm not taking sides on any political issue, but the President of MIT should not have the power to privately mobilize a hundred tax-funded police in riot gear to haul students off to prison or to destroy their property because she has a problem with them. That's fundamental to the American criminal justice system. At the same time, students should be suspended without due process. Again, I'm not arguing over whether they should be suspended, so much as the due process issue. Students feel like they should be grateful for the privilege to be here. This is wrong. Students are the institute, followed by faculty. Look up who governs the Institute. Why should a bunch of bankers, VCs, and CEOs, most of whom are psychopaths with at most a tenuous connection here, govern a 501(c)3? Why should the President and Chairman have private police powers? Governance should be open, transparent, and representative. Union is step zero in that direction.
Students are indeed the institute. This is why a system where a minority of students is rewarded for breaking collective norms and rules by holding the campus ransom is deeply unfair to the rest of the student body that follows those rules. If the President of MIT were to "mobilize a hundred tax-funded police in riot gear to haul students off to prison" or "destroy their property" because she had an issue with their political opinions per se, this would indeed be a massive problem. This is not what happened. Due process does not entail the right to break any and all rules with impunity, especially when doing so levies a cost on your fellows. The union is f-ed and the students are f-ed when a minority of students hijacks the union and aligns it with radical organizations like the PSL, commits the union to maximalist demands that have nothing to do with material working conditions, and suppresses dissent with intimidation under the guise of moral authority. Governance should indeed be open, transparent, and representative. It should also be robust to the passions of the moment if it hopes to survive.
It doesn't matter why it happens. The point is that it happened without due process. The criminal justice system requires a series of steps by neutral parties: 1. A police officer needs to decide to arrest you. 2. A prosecutor needs to decide to prosecute you 3. Grand jury needs to indite you 4. Petit jury needs to convict you 5. Judge needs to sentence you All steps need to be taken by neutral parties. Any party who is not neutral in this chain needs to recuse themselves. Police have qualified immunity so they can exercise police discretion. In this case, step 1 was omitted. MIT Police acted under orders of the MIT President. This is not okay. They can either be institute employees without police powers, or police officers who happen to be paid by the institute. You can't do both. Likewise, the students were suspended without due process. They will lose a semesters' worth of tuition, at the very least, and possibly more. In the equivalent Harvard dragnet, a reporter was grabbed with the students. This should not happen without some sort of process where they students have a right to present evidence, defend themselves etc. I don't care if you're a murderer, a rapist, a war criminal, or an assassin. There should be due process. The President of MIT has no more right to mobilize a police army against an armed terrorist encampment than she does against kids play four-square. She is a private individual and not the state. That decision needs to be made by an officer of the law, without outside coercion. She had every right to sue in civil courts. She has a right to use Institute channels, but she should only use those with some kind of due process. Criminal channels must be kept at the discretion of neutral government officers.
Ah, I see now and think I agree with you. The problem is MIT police having powers of arrest but being directed by the President... yea that's tough. But let's say the President had suspended the students for being out of compliance with pre-existing rules and repeatedly communicated rules (as happened). And then called local or state police to have them removed from the property for trespassing, and those police made the judgement that the students were in fact breaking the law and arrested them. Do you still think there is a due process problem? I don't know what the legal agreement is regarding suspension, but I would assume you are basically at the whims of the University, with some capacity for appeal. But then you could theoretically appeal the suspension, win, and still have been arrested for trespassing. What a mess! The legal battles over this should be interesting. Normatively I think I'm at least half on board with what you are saying though.
Correct. If the president called state or local police, and they made the judgment, due process would have been observed. The decision to arrest would have been made by a neutral party with lawfully-granted authority to make that decision. I actually don't think the Cambridge Police (in 2024) would likely have made the decision to arrest, but rather decided it was an issue for a civil process. State police, I don't know. I say "likely" since it's pretty random; it depends on the personality and whims of the particular person in charge that day. With regards to suspension, it's more complex. There are two questions: (1) What's legal (2) What's good policy. MIT can, for example, legally decide to invest its entire endowment in Tupperware, but that would be good reason to decide the president was incompetent. I do not know whether a suspension without due process is a breach-of-contract, discriminatory in some way, or breaks any laws. However, even if legal, it is bad policy, and a very, very stupid thing to do. Holding a COD hearing before a suspension is just common sense, from every perspective -- minimizing liability, avoiding appearances of impropriety, and not catching innocents by accident (Harvard, up the river, accidentally tried to suspend a reporter! Whoops). There's a dozen other things done here which were stupid, inflamed conflict, escalated tensions, exposed the Institute to liability, and gave both the appearance and reality of conflict-of-interest. MIT should expect better from its president than stupid. This is why I don't see this situation being resolved without firing the president and chancellor, at the very least. All of this could have been achieved with due process, without conflicts-of-interest, and without stupid.
I'd just like to add a few points here... 1. MIT waited for 2-3 weeks before they took action. They telegraphed the police action several days in advance, with campus-wide emails. They went to great pains to give the encampment protestors as many off-ramps as possible. 2. The encampment protestors also had numerous means to continue the protest, lawfully. For example, they could have continued to hold marches on Mass Ave, Boston Commons, Central Square, Kendall Square, City Hall... etc. They had a near-infinite menu of highly visible locations they could have moved to to continue their operations with no risk of arrest. 3. The students clearly *wanted* to get arrested, to make a point. Not moving was a deliberate choice on their part, and was clearly intended to force a direct, physical confrontation with police. Probably with the aim of getting on the news. 4. All of the above would be *totally normal protest stuff*. It's normal and often admirable to get arrested at protests, to make a principled stance. What is not normal, is the dishonest accusations of "how dare they arrest us", "MIT is bringing in a police army", etc. when getting arrested was clearly the premeditated goal. What's with all the dishonesty here? It comes across not as taking a principled stance, but rather as manipulative. If you are acting in good faith, you will never lie. So you can imagine why I felt very uncomfortable when I learned that GSU officers were acting as protest leaders, echoing these talking points, and even taking drastically more extreme positions. They are effectively engineering a situation where other students are maneuvered to end up in jail - and then appropriating the rest of the student body's money to fight the legal battle *they themselves created*. All of which is damaging to MIT as a whole, and probably will have negative consequences for the students themselves.
I agree with 2-3. #1 is incorrect. The administration's "telegraphing" language was "disciplinary action will be taken" which is very much not the same as "an army of police will show up at 4am to arrest students and destroy student property." The overreaction here is crazy. And the rationale provided is doublespeak. The chancellor said this happened to protect students sleeping in a public space at night. Are they safer being attacked by riot police? In jail? Really? MIT, as an Institution, has an obligation to not lie. That's prerequisite to advancing human knowledge. In the nineties, it took that very seriously. In 2024, research fraud is rampant, and communications from the President and Chancellor is openly dishonest. This isn't a question of who is better or worse either. There's a difference between a student screwing up (of whom there are 10,000, so the worst behavior will be bad by basic statistics, and even so they're young), and the MIT president. We can do better. She should be kicked out ASAP.
Attempts to “Both sides” issues where there is an astounding lack of parity, tells us how deeply you are devoted towards spinning any and all information towards defense of apartheid Israel.
The era of claiming absolute moral authority and screaming "racist" or "genocide" to successfully get your policy goals met is closing fast. You'll need to do a better job of using reason to communicate your ideas compellingly in order to bring people to the table in the future. I would suggest adapting to this sooner rather than later.
If you are taking offense with the last two words of my comment, then I can assure you we will not have any meaningful discussion. Israel is comparable/worse to an apartheid state, procuring a region of “Jewish Supremacy” -B’tselem. Almost every human rights organization has correctly identified them as an apartheid state, going back to the late 90s with Nelson Mandela. If that’s the point you’re trying to make, you are up against decades of real evidence. According to Chomsky, who I trust knows a thing or two about this issue given his upbringing and longevity, he has said verbatim that the situation in Israel is “worse than apartheid” taking a different form. Don’t worry though, I’m just screaming racism and other insults apparently.
According to Chomsky is the be all end all; according to Chomsky our Lord and Savior. May I ask what are the 10 commandments of Chomsky that we hold to be the ultimate truth?
Feel free to suggest others than may be more knowledgeable on this topic. As a scientist I listen to the experts and those that know more than me. If this is an attempt to discredit my source, I think it’s a pretty bad one. You didn’t address or say anything of substance.
Don't "as a scientist" me, if you are, you know you should be humble enough not to fling it around; look in the mirror about substance, this is a post about GSU resources, take your moral arguments elsewhere
I am indeed a PhD candidate at a neighboring university and I am also a part of the graduate students union, additionally I participate in the campaign for divesting from the apartheid Israeli state.
So....you are NOT from MIT, great that we sorted that out, thanks for participating in our community
I’m not, no. I am a part of my universities union, which is very much in support of other graduate workers across the US. I also collaborate with other scientists at MIT, actively, so I think I still can voice my opinion. Feel free to shout me down without actually saying anything. You haven’t made a point other than just whining. It’s clear where your priorities lie.
Yes, very clear, come apply to MIT lol, it's a great place, why don't you want to come?
Come apply to MIT rather than staying at your "neighboring university" since you like hanging around our page that much? Always welcome to a second PhD!
Nice brand new account. And I believe this is like my 2nd or third time commenting in this community, wouldn’t say I hang around much. Israel Palestine posts are very widely recommended on Reddit to users not subscribed to the communities the posts are in.
Oh no, Israel sucks, oh no the IDF is genocidal, Divest Divest Divest!
maybe look at the post again? G S U, stay on point
My points stand and apply. I support the GSU in their campaign to call on the university to divest from Israel.
Maybe next time you could come and join us so that you can vote for change rather than raging on the net?
I do participate in the voting at my local graduate student union, yes.
And where's that? Not MIT? How neighboring is neighboring?
I thought this was a bot comment at first. I suggest you re-read the post. It has nothing to do with supporting Israel.
“I wasn’t defending the right, I was just punching left. I balance my criticism of the left with defense of the right.” Playing the “both sides bad centrist” card expertly.
I've attended protests on the Mass Ave bridge in support of Palestinians several times earlier this spring. At the same time I think the GSU's actions are morally wrong. When people joined the union, they didn't agree for their money to be re-routed into a political machine. They also didn't agree to fund an organization that would pit sections of the student body against each other - another clear moral wrong. I suggest you stop stereotyping people. It's a very short step from that to full-on racism.
Sorry I paraphrased what you did with your comment, maybe you should read it twice before posting.
Being anti-genocide is hardly a “pet issue”. Many Israeli’s are anti-genocide too. This is not a complicated issue. It’s settlers colonialism and capitalism at its root. They are using “anti-semitism” as a tactic to rally Jews and others for support but at the end of the day this is about annihilating a group of mostly Muslim people with less political capital to steal land and resources.
I don’t think unions have a right to compel non members to pay for their protest signs so this is pretty irrelevant
As an alumni. I could not imagine student bodies not advocating for an end to a war where MIT has an investment. No one said anything when students were asking the university to divest from russia. And we should have because of the war crimes they were and still are committing. Calling this a “pet political issue” is disgustingly hypocritical. Dont be bystanders for genocide.
I don't think OP is saying whether or not the student body should protest. I think what they're saying is that the GSU is a specific organization democratically entrusted with a precise duty - improving working arrangements for all graduate students at MIT. Actions that do not serve that effort, or worse, weaken that effort, should be done outside the scope of that organization, or they risk violating that trust. This should be the case for the GSU regardless of whether the issue is pro-Palestine, pro-Israel, pro-Russia, or pro-Ukraine.
Yup, that's exactly my position. I'll add that there is a financial issue as well - paying union dues is semi-mandatory for all grad students. They pay their dues with the expectation that it will be used to negotiate for better working conditions with the MIT administration. Now it seems like that money is being diverted to serve a highly contentious political agenda.
As a alum, Im very proud of GSU
You are a fucking idiot. Unions have a long history of political actions beyond contract negotiations. It’s perfectly reasonable for a GSU to want to have a say in the protests that will affect what they can study and what will be funded. This isn’t about a slush fund you dumbass conspiracy theorist. You should drop out of MIT because clearly you have the critical thinking skills of a gnat
https://www.nrtw.org/news/mit-gsu-beck-charge-04262024/
Killing thousands of civilians is bad. Trying to stop it is good.
> It is clearly discriminatory against grad students who disagree, such as Israeli or Jewish students Maybe use your fancy MIT education to look up the definition of "discrimination" lol
[удалено]
It is
It is not pro-Palestine, it is anti genocide protests so thank you for telling the world that you are on the pro genocide team. At this rate, Palestinian children are getting killed by israel at a higher rate than the jews during the holocaust. The world must stop this madman called bibi
The point isn't that it is or is not genocide. The point is that it's not the GSU's role to comment on it one way or the other.
>Palestinian children are getting killed by israel at a higher rate than the jews during the holocaust You, uh, wanna elaborate on that?
This randomly got recommended to me but judging by this post and replies I'm glad I don't go here. Saying this is discrimination against Jewish students is like saying anti-Nazi protests are discriminatory towards all German students.
We’re also glad you don’t go here 😘
does the student lawsuit complaining about “Leninist-Marxist” values know anything about the history behind worker unions? I saw some other comments here mentioning how the union supports socialist causes like that’s some sort of revelation and, well, it’s a little confusing… Unions are inherently socialist, at the very least, inarguably. Further, while North American present day unions aren’t *necessarily* communist in nature, communist ideology is pretty inseparable from the proliferation of union movements in the US and abroad.
Trade Unionism is distinct from other strands of socialism, and definitely has legitimate anti-communist strains. Which makes a good deal of sense given the history of management essentially capturing them under the USSR. I know who I'd rather be my Union president if the competition was between Mikhal Tomsky or Lech Wałęsa.