Rubin does not represent undergraduate views on GESO

To the Editor:

Michael Rubin needs to get his head out of his Assyrian apocalypses and take a look around (and no, I don't care whether Assyrian is actually part of the Iranian studies program). What I do care about is a grad student presenting himself as the voice of the undergraduates, the one who knows what will be good and bad for us, especially since he doesn't even seem to know the facts about his favorite rant subject.

Rather than speculate on the sources of Rubin's apocalyptic fantasies, or the sources for his (mis)information, I will try to give a brief statement of the actual facts of a number of the issues he brings up, without the hyperbole which Mr. Rubin so energetically employs. In case of disagreement, I'll cite my sources: GESO position papers and fliers, all public, and what was said at a public forum with Dean Appelquist by GESO leaders and members. Mr. Rubin, as the Beastie Boys once said, "Where'd you get your information from?"

1. GESO members have frequently and at length talked "about what its program means" for undergraduates. In fact, they did it for several hours at the town meeting called by Dean Appelquist to discuss the Kutzinski report--for every comment on the financial effects of the proposal for grad students, there was one on the problems it raises for undergraduate education. All you have to do is look at a GESO position paper, or read one of their fliers.

2. "Unionized grad students" will not have "the law behind them to interfere in university policy." They would not be able "to use the threat of litigation to compel the university" to change the curriculum. Unionized TAs, like other unionized workers, would have the right to negotiate with the administration about their conditions of employment. In other words, they would be allowed to discuss their pay, the number of hours they work for it, their health care, and similar issues with the Administration. No agreements could be made without the administration's assent (which is required now, in case you hadn't noticed). The "threat of litigation" is likewise mythical. The notion that unions are very strictly regulated by the government, and can almost never sue except in cases of breach of litigation, is likewise mythical. Unless the administration puts it in, a TA union's contract could not address curriculum issues.

3. No undergrads were "victims" in last year's grade strike. Those TAs who struck gave grades on request to undergrads for transcripts and for personal interest. Furthermore, the frequency of grad student strikes here has been a result of the fact that TAs are not recognized as a union by the administration. All that President Levin needed to do to end any of the GESO strikes was to agree to negotiate. Not to agree to any demands. Just to agree to talk.

4. No GESO member I've ever heard speak has said that having grad students teach seminars is exploitive. They have said that having grad students teach seminars for the same pay as exam graders is exploitive. At the Kutzinski forum (were you there, Michael?), GESO members spoke out for more opportunities to teach seminars, opportunities that the report's proposal would almost definitely eliminate. They also voiced their support for one of GESO's traditionally central demands, one which Mr. Rubin never mentions: smaller, more personal sections for undergrads.

In conclusion, and a bit more concerned with opinion than fact, I'm wondering why Rubin thinks that the undergrad response to an attempt by our fellow students to get a voice on campus should be to try to shove a sock in their throats. It seems to me that a more appropriate response would be for undergrads to try to get a voice for ourselves, to get a say in the issues that affect us on this campus. (For example, the fact that our meal plans and financial aid packages screw us over, the fact that this place is still damn close to lily-white, the fact that popular professors just don't get tenured.) Why should we trust in either big brother Michael Rubin or the Yale Administration to look out for our interests when we can do it ourselves? Let's follow GESO's example--and hope they help us more than we've helped them.

--Daniel Lang, PC '98

Back to Opinion...