Since the audience to whom Deans Eaton and Young wrote are the very same people who engage daily with the undergraduates at the University of Washington in a meaningful manner, it is remarkable that they would choose to remind us of our responsibility to them. I can assure these gentlemen that my colleagues and I are far more sensitive to the needs of our students than the administration is to them. Indeed, had the administration any sense of responsibility to the students at the university, it would have recognized its obligation to ensure that their instructors are treated with dignity, respect, and assured economic stability.
This leads me to my next point. Although we often tend to refer to "the university" as an entity separate from ourselves, the university is, in actuality, comprised of its members—that is to say its students, faculty, and staff (the vast majority of whom have no voice)—and is not a private corporation (despite the efforts of its venal administration to the contrary). It is the unwillingness of the central administration to engage in meaningful and constructive negotiation that has brought us to the present impasse. In consequence, the administration has chosen to disregard the needs of its students (both graduate and undergraduate) and, despite disingenuous arguments that seek to cast academic student employees as feckless, it is the administration which has abrogated its responsibilities to the university by approaching the bargaining in mala fides and addressing its members in such a deeply uncollegial fashion.
But that’s part of the problem, isn’t it?
The administration has forgotten that it serves the university, not the other way round. The administration that Deans Eaton and Taylor represent is unwilling to see me and my fellow academic student employees as colleagues. Instead, they, with the approval the central administration, have chosen to address us, members of the university and their colleagues, with the sort of patronizing double-speak one is accustomed to find in the private sector because they appear to fancy themselves as high-powered corporate executives. This fact is underscored by the customer service model of education that is depicted in their letter. Such a rank betrayal of the university and its values deserves nothing but contempt.
In closing, I wish to note the following. I left the private sector to pursue my PhD because I am passionate about my subject and wish to instill in others the same sense of curiosity and appreciation for the past. I care deeply about the success of my students and work hard to support them. Hitherto, while deprecating some of the rhetoric that has been used and despite my reservations concerning a few points in our bargaining demands, I have been generally—if passively—supportive of the union’s efforts—though willing to believe that the university administration would work with us to find a mutually agreeable compromise. The scales have fallen from my eyes and I wish to thank Deans Eaton and Taylor for disabusing me of such sanguinity. The decanal letter, which devalued my own contribution to the university and accused me of being uncaring, has not only revealed their disdain for the people they are supposed to serve, but also illuminated much concerning their characters.
