Privilege and Entitlement Unionize at Harvard University
Students of Harvard University are once again showcasing a culture of entitlement that only the most privileged of students could possibly display.
In an unnecessary call to action, The Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Workers is going on strike to demand that its administration pay student workers more, provide them with better health benefits, and give them better protections against discrimination and harassment.
It’s unconscionable that this student-led labor union decided to unionize in the first place, especially considering Harvard’s willingness to work towards negotiation. Considering the facts, it’s clear that this is purely a cry for attention, not action.
For the past year, Harvard’s administration has held more than 50 meetings with the union in an effort to negotiate reasonable terms for the demands.
The union, however, would have you believe that the university has done nothing to quell concerns. On their website, union members threatened that “on December 3rd, if the Harvard administration does not agree to a fair contract … thousands of striking students … will head out to the picket lines.”
Having been more than fair, Harvard has set out proposals to negotiate the union’s demands. Negotiations, however, don’t meet the standards of union members. In their eyes, if they aren’t getting every single thing they want, they’ll be dissatisfied with the outcome.
Francesca Bellei, a Ph.D. candidate in comparative literature, claimed, “We don’t get paid to write a PhD, we get paid to teach – so why shouldn’t we demand our basic rights as workers? We deserve protection from sexual harassment and discrimination, a fair workload and more transparent hiring practices, and the same health insurance staff and faculty at Harvard already have, because #WeWorkHere!”
Not only is it laughable that Harvard Ph.D. candidates genuinely feel that they’re being mistreated, but it’s also sad because it shows how entitled younger generations have become, despite their ability to enjoy a quality life that previous generations could have only dreamed of.
Bellei calls for “basic rights” that guarantee student-worker protection, less laborious workloads and health insurance benefits that are better than those of other students. Essentially, she wants to get more and work less.
While lighter workloads accompanied by better benefits sound great, I have to wonder if these students even considered what they were getting themselves into when applying for Ph.D. programs — at Harvard nonetheless.
What’s equally nonsensical is the claim that these students don’t have protections in place for discrimination and harassment. Harvard has a robust Title IX office with more than 50 specially trained coordinators, as well as several other resources provided by the university that target students’ specific needs.
The solution proposed by the union is to have labor arbitrators acting as third-party mediators. While the administration was quick to propose solutions to other demands, it pushed back against implementing labor arbitrators.
Furthermore, arbitrators don’t have the authority to impose sanctions. This is a blatantly ineffective solution to a problem that already has a working process in place.
Another complaint came from Juliana Ramirez, a Ph.D. candidate in the history of art and architecture, who said, “we need subsidized child-care, dependent’s healthcare, and rent. Nobody should have to put their family and their mental and financial health as collateral for earning a Ph.D. at Harvard, much less women and mothers who have historically fought so much to get to where they are today.”
News flash: Earning a degree from any school takes a toll on mental and financial health; it’s the price one pays to receive an education in hopes of achieving a better future.
Students apply to these programs knowing full well what will be compensated and what won’t be in terms of health coverage. It’s laid out in plain sight on the university’s website.
They get access to internal medicine, a comprehensive insurance plan, fully subsidized mental health care and much more. If students were dissatisfied with health care that many Americans would be happy to have, they shouldn’t have considered applying to these programs.
It’s a shame that these students think they’re being financially oppressed, considering that Ph.D. students receive at least four years of guaranteed tuition grants, annual stipends and fully subsidized health coverage.
Not only are these financial benefits significant, but Harvard students also have the opportunity to graduate from a top-tier school that practically guarantees a healthy post-graduate salary.
This strike is clearly part of an elaborate and illegitimate movement that for some reason is being taken seriously when it is in the least bit serious.
These students have unparalleled opportunities, but they refuse to acknowledge their advantages in life because it’s “offensive” to have any form of privilege. With that in mind, they form unions to combat a concocted assertion that they’re being mistreated, despite the fact that they have every resource possible at the snap of their fingers.
They’re out of touch with reality. They’re the very embodiment of the children in grocery stores wailing in dissatisfaction when their mothers won’t allow them to have another piece of chocolate.
It’s time to stop giving in to these demands — to stop appeasing the crying five-year-old in aisle six. Harvard is right to push back on these demands, as it shouldn’t allow petulant behavior like this to set the stage for its policies.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
