MALIK: Strike suspension should not be end of fight for Rutgers faculty

In the early hours of April 15, Rutgers' strike was officially suspended. After a week-long suspension of classes, combined with faculty and students marching at picket lines across all three Rutgers campuses, there appeared to be some resolution in the end, as negotiations between three unions and the University were conducted with Gov. Phil Murphy (D-N.J.) in the New Jersey State House in Trenton.

University President Jonathon Holloway explained in a University-wide email that the tentative agreement consists of a framework that has been created to outline economic issues, stating that "new contracts will increase salaries across-the-board for full-time faculty and EOF counselors by at least 14 percent by July 1, 2025."

Additionally, there will be a "43.8 percent increase in the per-credit salary rate for part-time lecturers over the four years of the contract" with an increase for "the minimum salary for postdoctoral fellows and associates by 27.9 percent over the same contract period." 

For graduate students, the new framework promises that they will receive free tuition and fees as well as health care benefits. They will also see an increase in their 10-month salaries over the contract's duration, according to the email.

While these promises are great to hear, especially since Holloway was adamant about taking legal action in response to the strike not too long ago, it is important to discuss how we got into this situation. Why, after weeks of negotiations, did it take a five-day strike for a University that pays its head football coach $4 million a year to agree to pay its graduate students a livable wage?

Before the strike occurred, the constant back-and-forth between the unions and administration was a clear sign that the University thought a strike would not take place. This line of reasoning is contingent on the belief that workers are replaceable and should be grateful for their jobs rather than be concerned about equitable compensation that can sustain workers' lives.

In Holloway's University-wide emails after the strike was announced, he continuously drew on the fact that if the strike continued, it could hurt those scheduled to graduate in a few weeks. This narrative attempts to guilt members of unions into pushing off their needs when they should just have been addressed by the University in the first place.

Along with this, the University constantly suggested the threat of legal action, potentially forcing union members to continue to work and extending the length of the strike itself. Not only does this show that the University knows it depends on faculty's work but that it was not willing to compensate its employees properly, which exposes a more selfish perspective held by the University.

One of the main reasons for the strike's short duration was that it included both full-time and tenured professors, and data has shown that faculty strikes tend to be shorter than those led by graduate assistants.

I believe that everyone who plays a role in the education of students should be compensated fairly. Graduate workers are invaluable to universities, and this should be acknowledged and understood. Their value should not be purposefully diminished by dangerous rhetoric that seems to deem them essentially replaceable.

Now that the strike has been suspended, it is important not to forget that the perspective of the University, which allowed tensions to reach this point, still needs to change. The University needs to take preemptive action that shows it effectively values its academic faculty as they face economic changes, like inflation. Ultimately, the University needs to step up by showing appreciation for those who educate its students and proving that these agreements are not empty words.

This also means that the University needs to address the inequity between Rutgers' campuses, which has not been given a substantial solution. The students on other Rutgers campuses pay the same amount of tuition but have academic faculty that are paid less than those on the New Brunswick campuses.

This disproportionate compensation and the reality that Rutgers—Newark and Rutgers—Camden have a greater Black and Hispanic student population than Rutgers—New Brunswick is concerning. Equitable compensation for academic faculty would allow for better education for all Rutgers students on all three campuses, which means this should be a priority.

While the strike proved rewarding, the upcoming years will prove whether it inspired greater care and appreciation from the University's standpoint or if it was simply an agreement to avoid further inconvenience.

While one wants to hope it is the former, it is realistically the latter. But one of the key ways the University can turn this around and earn the trust of its academic faculty again is by focusing on equity between campuses.

The strike should not be the end of this fight.

Sehar Malik is a first-year in the School of Arts and Sciences, majoring in molecular biology and biochemistry and minoring in French. Her column, "On the Good Life," runs alternate Thursdays.

---

*Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.

YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Due to space limitations in our print newspaper, letters to the editor must not exceed 900 words. Guest columns and commentaries must be between 700 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day's publication. Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff