To the Editor:
Cornell United is a diverse group of Cornell graduate students, representing a wide range of departments and political perspectives, united in opposition to a union shop or any other form of compulsory unionism in the graduate school. We are writing in response to a letter from professors in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, titled “Wrong on the Facts, Wrong on the Law,” which misrepresents the facts and the law to present a misleading defense of union shop for Cornell Graduate Student Union-United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, or CGSU-UE. Attorneys from Cornell’s contract negotiation team have already responded with a perspective inside the bargaining room; we offer the viewpoint of graduate students seeking to protect our right to choose whether or not to support the union. The policy alternative that adequately protects this freedom to choose while preserving collective bargaining is called “open shop.”
The open shop principle ensures that current and future Cornell graduate students can study here, free from pressure and political conformity. By advocating for a union shop, CGSU-UE opposes this principle. Requiring graduate students to join and fund the union contradicts Cornell's founding principle that “any person can find instruction in any study." Our primary opposition to the union shop is that no one should be forced to fund a political organization — or any organization — whose positions they fundamentally oppose. For example, the union annually establishes an official party line at the national level, known as UE Policy, advocating far-left positions on both foreign and domestic policy. On campus, our union leadership has advocated the Boycott, Divestment, Sanction movement at union rallies and has used bargaining sessions to litigate the suspension of union leaders for violating Cornell’s Code of Conduct at pro-Palestine demonstrations. We came to Cornell to focus on our studies, and it is unacceptable that our academic experience should be tied to financially supporting a cause that conflicts with our personal beliefs.
The letter’s authors fixate on the technical distinctions between union membership and compulsory dues in order to side-step the core issue, but the fundamental reality remains. A union shop compels all graduate students to financially support a political organization whose ideology they may find abhorrent. Under the union’s proposal, graduate students would face a choice: pay full dues, including contributions to the union’s explicitly political and ideological activities, or pay marginally reduced “agency fees” while forfeiting their right to vote on contracts and representatives.
Those unwilling to accept either option risk termination of their employment, jeopardizing their ability to complete their degree with a graduate appointment. In defending this proposal, the professors’ letter invokes the Communications Workers of America v. Beckdecision but glosses over the full financial burden imposed on those paying agency fees as well as their surrendered democratic representation. The Beck decision bars forcing non-union members to fund political activities, but it allows the union itself to determine what qualifies as “political activity,” leading to only token reductions from full dues while forcing graduate students to fund activities with no direct relation to the economic benefits in our contract. Examples include travel funds to attend the national union conference to vote on UE policy, contributions to a strike fund to sustain strikes in other states, office supplies and rent supporting all union efforts, and legal assistance for students facing discipline for their political activity on campus.
Labeling the union’s proposal “not extraordinary,” they fail to acknowledge the more recent Supreme Court ruling inJanus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which categorically prohibits such arrangements for public-sector unions, citing an unacceptable burden on First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also recognized in Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn that compulsory union shop arrangements represent an “extraordinary state entitlement to acquire and spend other people’s money.” While Janus does not apply to private universities like Cornell, its holding underscores the importance of ensuring that graduate students here receive the same protections as their peers at public institutions. The only way to safeguard academic freedom is for the Cornell administration to uphold an open shop policy. Why should graduate students at Cornell enjoy fewer protections for our academic freedom than our peers at public universities?
The letter also asserts that "it is only fair that all employees in the bargaining unit should … pay their share of the costs of collective bargaining." We respectfully disagree. Our moral values take precedence over any financial benefit the union may secure through negotiations. The assumption that we should be compelled to support a political group we strongly oppose in exchange for better pay is misguided. This issue is not about obtaining a higher salary; it is about upholding our ethical principles. Just because the union believes it acts “for our benefit” does not mean we agree. Indeed, we believe the union’s imposed representation is a detriment to our working lives and a violation of our conscience.
Interim President Michael Kotlikoff’s and Provost Kavita Bala’s recent statement and the Letter to the Editor from Cornell’s bargaining team together affirm Cornell’s commitment to an open shop: a stance that is right on the facts and right on the law. We hope that Cornell will continue to uphold its commitment to academic freedom for all students.
Signed,
Benjamin Gregory and members of Cornell United
The Cornell Daily Sun is interested in publishing a broad and diverse set of content from the Cornell and greater Ithaca community. We want to hear what you have to say about this topic or any of our pieces. Here are some guidelines on how to submit. And here’s our email: opinion@cornellsun.com.
