Intercom

intercom home  |  advanced search  |  about intercom  |  alerts  |  faq  |  help     Search Intercom

Submitted on Behalf of President Thomas Rochon

Dear Colleagues,

Below you will find the text of my commentary that was published in the April 30 edition of The Ithacan.I wanted to make sure that part-time and adjunct faculty have the opportunity to see this important message on the issue of “neutrality” as it pertains to the upcoming union election. 

The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion

Some supporters of the union organizing effort at Ithaca College have expressed surprise and disappointment that the administration is unwilling to be “neutral” on the subject. I too am surprised, but in the opposite direction: My surprise is that anyone connected with an institution of higher learning would demand or expect restrictions on the free flow of information.

First, a definition. “Neutrality” in this context means that the administration would be completely silent during the coming weeks while part-time and adjunct faculty gather information and determine how they wish to vote on the question put before them on union representation. As explained to me by the part-time faculty leading this effort, the only messages would come from the union itself. There would be no administration statement of views, no provision of facts, no correction of any misstated claims that might be made by others. We would be mute.  We would be silenced.

When I was asked by union organizers on April 15 to commit that the administration would maintain neutrality under this definition, I responded that we would not and could not be neutral. I offered specific examples of the kind of information we would share with part-time faculty—examples that can now be found on the website we created. Instead of silence, I committed the administration to a respectful and fact-based dialogue, a commitment I believe we have upheld.

The moral foundation of an academic community rests on the free flow of information and thought. Critical analysis and independent thought require access to multiple perspectives. The remedy for partial information is always more information. Agree to neutrality? I would never sell out the core values of the academy in that way.

In the context of the upcoming union election, I believe it is our responsibility as an employer to provide access to facts so that employees in the eligible voting unit can make a fully informed decision. To do otherwise, especially on such a critically important issue, is not consistent with our academic mission or the best interests of part-time and adjunct faculty.

The Service Employees International Union is well within its rights to campaign in favor of its own views, and I would not expect the union’s professional organizers to offer a point of view other than their own.

As we have said from the beginning, it is our preference that our part-time and adjunct faculty continue to maintain a direct working relationship with the college rather than bring a third party into that relationship. The Ithaca College Union Choice website (www.ithaca.edu/unionchoice) will therefore continue to share announcements and other material that we believe are helpful to those voting in the union election as well as to all of our faculty, staff, and students.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual voters—not the administration or the Service Employees International Union—to decide which option best serves their interests as faculty at IC. Whatever your position is on this issue, if you are among those eligible to vote we strongly encourage you to do so. The outcome of the election could have significant ramifications for the college, and is too important to be decided by a minority of those empowered with this choice.

If you are an interested spectator rather than a voter, and again regardless of your position on the issue, I urge that you support an election process that conforms to our shared values of full information, independent thought, and uncoerced action.

Tom Rochon
President

The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion | 11 Comments |
The following comments are the opinions of the individuals who posted them. They do not necessarily represent the position of Intercom or Ithaca College, and the editors reserve the right to monitor and delete comments that violate College policies.
The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from jablard on 04/30/15
This is a pretty broad and aggressive statement about the attitude of faculty toward freedom of speech. I didn't realize that the group supporting adjuncts, of which I'm a member, no longer believe that the First Amendment applies on campus.
The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from tkerr on 04/30/15
The Union Election Comment from bharris on 04/30/15
Thanks for your important clarifications, Prof. Kerr.
The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from cduncan on 05/01/15
[I posted this comment to the Ithacan comment forum yesterday, but it isn't showing up there 24 hours later, so I am reposting the comment here.]

Dear Pres. Rochon,

Thank you for contributing your thoughts on this issue. I do, though, strongly want to emphasize that the faculty who have objected to the administration's "Union Choice" webpages are not calling for restrictions on the free flow of information. What we have objected to is the manner in which the administration's information is presented.

It is not surprising that many readers of these webpages have understood the administration to be claiming neutrality for itself. The Union Choice homepage, for instance, explicitly states that "Ithaca College is neither 'anti-union' nor 'pro-union.'" Moreover, one of the links takes a reader to an FAQ page that is written in a format and style that strongly suggests its aim is simply to present relevant background facts, rather than make a case for one side or the other.

However, despite this "just the facts" appearance, the FAQ page appears carefully crafted to insinuate the cynical view that SEIU is only interested in unionizing IC part-time instructors in order to increase its revenues. (Imagine, for instance, an "FAQ" page about the Sierra Club that only mentioned its fundraising needs and did not mention any of the Sierra Club's work on behalf of the environment.) Additionally, the final two questions on the FAQ subtly insinuate that the petition is not representative of the bulk of IC part-time instructors, thereby calling into question its legitimacy.

If the administration had been more straightforward in its presentation of its position, then I do not believe these complaints about the Union Choice webpages would have arisen. Suppose, for instance, the Union Choice page had not said "Ithaca College is neither 'anti-union' nor 'pro-union'," but rather something like "Although Ithaca College recognizes there are many types of unions in this country, and does not take an 'anti-union' nor 'pro-union' stance across the board regarding these, in this particular case we oppose the formation of union among IC adjunct instructors." Further suppose that instead of an FAQ, the administration had a webpage of bullet-points stating their reasons for believing that a part-timer union is not in the best interests of the college. In such a case, although many full-time faculty may have disagreed with the content of these webpages, we could respect the mode in which that content was presented, as sincere rather than misleading.

Sincerely,

Craig Duncan
Associate Professor
Philosophy & Religion
The Union Election Comment from warren on 05/01/15
Craig,
Thank you for stating the issues so clearly and for making such a well reasoned logical argument. Then again, which department are you in?
:-)
The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from gleitman on 05/01/15
The suggestion that those who are critical of the administration's response to the unionization effort are "sell[ing] out the core values of the academy" is offensive. The president's critics are not attempting to silence anyone; on the contrary, they are encouraging and engaging in precisely the free flow of information that the president advocates. The letter sent to the president by full-time faculty members does critique the fact that a website claiming to be neither pro nor anti-union in fact seems clearly slanted in a negative direction. As a remedy, however, it asks for *more* information on the website, not less.

Claire Gleitman
Professor
Department of English
The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from dturkon on 05/01/15
Thanks to my colleagues for calling out the condescending and deceptive nature of President Rochon's comments. Keep in mind that the original union choice information page had a link to an incredibly biased, anti-union propaganda portal found at unionfacts.com. I found this site to be juvenile and shameful, especially coming from someone connected with an institution of higher learning, to borrow our president's words. To reiterate what some of my colleagues have said, we are not trying to silence the administration, but rather asking that they heed to their own call for balance and neutrality.
The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from jablard on 05/04/15
2.12.3 General Solicitation and Advertising Guidelines
Chalking is strictly prohibited.

The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from mbentley on 05/05/15
The livable wage that we all need is ever elusive for part-time faculty. The pay has not kept pace with current cost of living and this margin has been steadily increasing. Well over 25% of part-time faculty in the U.S. are enrolled in at least one public assistance program, and so are being subsidized, because of low pay and/or lack of benefits. Many of us who are full time now have been part-time and understand the difficulty of cobbling together classes and working around another full-time job. Our best and brightest, the future of academia will be part-time faculty as this trend continues to grow, and we realize the fundamental shift it presents on U.S. campuses. This is an important moment. We as current full-time faculty need to support some form of collective representation and bargaining for all faculty, and be clear and public about our support, not just ask for balanced representation on a web site about unionization. This is not only about the administration it is about us, as advocates and activists for our campus and our profession.


Mary Bentley MSPH, Ph.D.
Associate Prof.
Health Promotion and Physical Education
Health Science and Human Performance
Ithaca College
Ithaca, NY 14850
mbentley@Ithaca.edu
607-274-3105
The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from moconnor on 05/08/15
President Rochon,

You write, “As we have said from the beginning, it is our preference that our
part-time and adjunct faculty continue to maintain a direct working relationship
with the college rather than bring a third party into that relationship.” Of what
does this relationship consist? “Relationship” implies a connection between
parties, an association, an involvement. The administration’s role in this
relationship appears to be that it offers to pay its adjunct and part-time faculty
an unlivable wage, refuses to offer benefits, and insists on keeping contingent
faculty guessing about their future employment. For their part, adjuncts and
part-time faculty are offered the following: take it or leave it. It seems pretty
clear that bringing in a third party has become necessary.
The Union Election – Our Responsibility to Join the Campus Discussion Comment from beachler on 05/08/15
President Rochon,

I posed only one question on the union issue. I e-mailed you and posted it on the Ithacan. You have declined to answer it. In the spirit of the academic discourse that you invoke, I will try a third time in this venue.

If the FAQ says SEIU's interest is only union dues (SEIU'S revenue source) , then would we accept the view that IC cares only about tuition (our revenue source) and not education ?
Of course not!

So, why not repudiate the unverifiable ad hominem attack that you recommended that people read?