2-News
A
s students and faculty at
the University of Michigan
started their second week of
the fall semester, a day was set aside
to observe Labor Day. In a Twitter
post on Monday, GEO wrote, “(Our)
membership has authorized a strike,
effective (Tuesday). This is a historic
moment: we are striking at the
beginning of the year, in the midst
of a pandemic, to protect our whole
community.” On Tuesday, Sept. 8,
the day after the national holiday,
members of the Graduate Employees’
Organization and their supporters
convened before daybreak on the
dark campus, with cardboard signs,
raincoats and courage. As the early
morning rain and thunderstorms
caused the marked words of “U-M
Makes Us Sick” to bleed, individuals
popped
open
umbrellas
and
began the first day of their strike
against the University’s inadequate
reopening plans. On Wednesday
evening, a historic number of GEO
members congregated to discuss
an offer presented to them by the
University. With an overwhelming
majority, membership rejected the
offer, concluding that it inadequately
addressed their demands and did not
express any continued progress.
During a deadly pandemic with
cases rising in college hotspots
around the country as a result of
tens of thousands of students and
faculty returning from around the
globe, university environments and
administrations were devastatingly
unprepared. With approximately five
months to plan for the fall semester
after classes moved to virtual formats
in mid-March, students, faculty and
the greater Ann Arbor community
hoped that the University and their
public health experts would create
effective and safe plans for the fall.
Within the first two weeks of the
majority of students being back on
campus, many feel they have not.
In an interview with The Daily,
GEO Secretary Amir Fleischmann
commented, “We’re striking over
the University’s totally inadequate
reopening plans and just the series
of policies they put in place over the
summer that’s making students and
workers on campus unsafe.”
Fleischmann
continued,
“It’s
important because GEO is supporting
the safety of everyone on campus.
One of the reasons is the University’s
totally inadequate testing policy,
which doesn’t include randomized
testing of asymptomatic people,
which all experts, including the
University’s own (experts), think is
necessary for a safe campus.”
In
addition
to
striking
in
response to reopening plans, GEO
is also concerned about the lack of
communication and transparency
from the University administration
during the implementation of the
Michigan
Ambassadors
program
and resulting partnerships with
the Ann Arbor Police Department
and the Division of Public Safety
and Security. After a particularly
momentous summer that centered
on the national protests against police
brutality, violence and racial injustices,
the University’s ploy to work with
law enforcement to police students
did not sit well with the community.
Motivated by fear for livelihood,
health, security and the future during
a pandemic and civil rights movement,
hundreds of people have gathered
across campus to stand in solidarity
with graduate students.
However,
in
an
email
to
undergraduate
students
on
Wednesday morning, Susan M.
Collins, provost and executive vice
president for academic affairs, wrote,
“I strongly affirm the importance
of student perspectives and student
activism at the University of Michigan.
The University has a long and
celebrated history of its community
members standing up for what they
believe in through acts of freedom
of speech and peaceful protest. The
strike violates Michigan law; in
addition, GEO has agreed by contract
not to take actions that interfere with
the University’s operations, in this
case, your education. Nonetheless,
the University’s team will continue
to meet with GEO in good faith to
resolve remaining issues.”
In 1973, after a University policy
was initiated that would charge
non-resident graduate employees
out-of-state tuition for the first
time as well as a 24-percent tuition
increase, graduate student employees
founded
the
Organization
of
Teaching Fellows, deriving from a
group that first started organizing
as “teaching fellows” three years
prior. The University administration
refused to recognize the concerns
of the teaching fellows unless they
were certified by the Michigan
Employment Relations Commission,
an election process that had already
failed a few years before. OTF began
loose associations with the American
Association of University Professors,
and discussions of a strike were
underway but never came to pass.
Shortly thereafter, in the summer
of 1973, the teaching fellows merged
with research and staff assistants
of the University to found the
Graduate Employees’ Organization.
In an effort to speed up the process of
gaining certification, GEO members
compromised, only calling for their
recognition as employees of the
institution. With low stakes, the
University agreed to GEO negotiations
for official recognition and there was
an immediate Michigan Employment
Relations Commission certification
election, allowing the organization to
be certified on April 15, 1974.
However, things did not continue
to proceed smoothly for graduate
student employees. In June 1974,
negotiations
for
a
contract
—
demanding nondiscrimination, better
working conditions and fair wages —
began and lasted for months without
progress. A handful of months later,
all methods of negotiation were
enervated, and union members
decided to strike in 1975. On Feb. 11,
with no clue of how long the intensive
picketing and striking would last,
hundreds of GEO members gathered
on campus with signs, gloves and
warm jackets: the onset of a cold
February.
In the early days of the strike,
more than half of undergraduate
students
boycotted
classes
and
joined the picket lines to stand in
solidarity with their teachers, peers
and fellow academics. Within the
first week, agreements on affirmative
action and non-discrimination cases
were achieved and local workers,
such as the Michigan Brotherhood
of
Teamsters,
recognized
the
importance of the strike and vowed
to not cross picket lines. The Strike
for a Contract lasted for a month
and on March 14, 1975, GEO proved
successful with its demands and
achieved tuition reductions, pay
raises and other benefits.
The current strike against the
University administration for the
failure to enact proper safety protocols
and an effective pandemic plan does
not reflect new sentiments expressed
by graduate students. Efforts for
unionization arrived in a first wave
throughout the 1960s and ’70s,
where graduate students at public or
state universities largely decorated
the front of picket lines. Cedric de
Leon, a professor and director of the
Labor Center at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst, explained,
“Graduate
students
have
been
unionizing
for
decades.”
These
unionizing efforts were already
instituted at the University of
California system schools and the
University of Michigan when strikes
at other universities around the
country happened. In 2016, Columbia
University graduate students won
bargaining rights when the National
Labor Relations Board reversed
a decision from 12 years earlier at
Brown University. More recently, in
June 2019, University of Chicago
graduate students touted marked
signs with “Workers’ Rights are
Human
Rights”
and
chanted
“recognize our election.” This
strong history of graduate students
linking
arms,
forming
picket
lines and taking up unionization
efforts has proved critical to the
situations GEO is faced with in the
contemporary moment.
Apart from explicit GEO strikes
at the University, there have been
many notable and revolutionary
protests, sit-ins and strikes worth
mentioning when examining the
atmosphere surrounding today’s
concerns. In June of 1962, a group of
students met in Port Huron, Mich.
to discuss their ideologies and goals
for a new organization, later named
the Students for the Democratic
Society. Their ideologies heavily
reflected the political agendas of the
New Left, and their quasi-manifesto
highlights the members’ opinions
on American society, politics and
military actions. The creation of
SDS’s manifesto, denoted as the Port
Huron Statement, was spearheaded
by Tom Hayden, a student at
the University that came from a
working-class family. An article
titled “Resistance and Revolution:
The Anti-Vietnam War Movement
at the University of Michigan, 1965-
1972” outlines the impact of the Port
Huron Statement.
The authors wrote that the
statement “described the existential
crisis of many Northern, white
students as they experienced the
disillusionment of the world that
they were growing up in. From the
campuses of their mega-universities,
the students and activists witnessed
the growing risk of nuclear war that
the Cold War caused and the continual
violence in the white segregationists’
resistance to the civil rights movement.
The students felt disenfranchised by
the American Dream that encouraged
consumerism and conformism while
alienating people of color and the
impoverished.”
This manifesto facilitated the
much-needed steam and momentum
that student activists sought during
the era of the Cold War and the
Vietnam War. In a Smithsonian
Magazine interview with former
SDS president Todd Gitlin, the
editor wrote, “The 2016 election
brought student activism back into
the spotlight. No student activist
organization in U.S. history has
matched the scope and influence of
Students for a Democratic Society
(SDS), thwe national movement of the
1960s.”
A few years later in 1968, on the day
of the burial of Martin Luther King
Jr., the newly founded Black Student
Union at the University took over the
Administration Building. After sitting
inside for five hours while demanding
more funding for Black students and
higher rates of hiring for Black faculty
members, the members of BSU had
a discussion with then-President
Robben Fleming and the lockout
ended. The conversation between
Fleming and the members resulted
in the establishment of the Center for
Afroamerican and African Studies.
However, two years after the
takeover, rates of Black faculty hires
and Black student enrollment had not
improved. Students called for a strike,
campuswide.
E
arlier this year, I watched
NASA
astronauts
Bob
Behnken and Doug Hurley
blast off from Cape Canaveral, Fla.,
in a SpaceX rocket. When the roar of
the rocket’s engine filled the air, I was
reminded of the boundless potential
of American science as a tall, sleek
spacecraft climbed past the outer
reaches of the earth’s atmosphere.
As exciting as I — and so many
Americans — found this SpaceX
rocket launch, there wasn’t anything
unusual about it. For almost 250 years,
Americans have been at the forefront
of science and innovation. Whether it
has been exploring the depths of space,
making breakthroughs in medicine or
lighting up our homes and businesses,
the American scientific community
has made the impossible possible,
transforming countless dreams into
reality.
Since public health experts first
began warning of the threat posed by
COVID-19, scientific communities
across
the
country
haven’t
disappointed one bit. Instead, doctors,
epidemiologists and others have
worked tirelessly on the front lines in
order to eradicate COVID-19 and get
life back to normal. Whether it be right
here at the University of Michigan or in
labs across the country, scientists have
gone to work to find safe medicines
and therapeutic, plasma and antibody
treatments, as well as an effective
vaccine. Six months since much of the
nation first went into lockdown, the
fight against this invisible enemy now
looks more promising than ever before.
While an effective vaccine remains
one of our greatest hopes to defeat
COVID-19, innovators are working
on countless other fronts in this
rapidly evolving battle against the
coronavirus. As this vital effort moves
full steam ahead, one of the most
promising advancements has taken
the form of monoclonal antibody
treatments,
which
are
already
undergoing testing by companies such
as Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and Eli Lilly and Co., according to the
Wall Street Journal.
At the moment, if someone
contracts COVID-19 and is in need
of medical attention, there are few
options outside of medicines like
Remdesivir, which might be somewhat
effective against the coronavirus
for serious cases. Therefore, these
monoclonal antibodies — which can
help prevent patients from developing
severe cases of COVID-19 — change
everything in our battle against this
virus. “The drugs, which are injected
intravenously or with a short needle,
have the potential to work soon after
someone is infected and still feeling
only slightly sick, stopping the virus in
its tracks before the seriously afflicted
would need to be hospitalized,” the
Wall Street Journal noted.
This exciting treatment also has
the potential to prevent somebody
from contracting COVID-19 in the
first place, serving as a “temporary
vaccine.” The United States has
always prevailed even in the most
trying times, and it’s become clear that
monoclonal antibodies are another
inspiring advancement from our
nation’s scientific community that
could help our country turn the page
on the coronavirus crisis.
Excitingly, monoclonal antibodies
are just one weapon in our growing
arsenal against COVID-19. Another
advancement
somewhat
similar
to these monoclonal antibodies is
convalescent plasma. As scientists
have discovered, a patient who
has been previously infected with
COVID-19 is likely to have a high
concentration of antibodies in their
blood. This convalescent plasma
treatment takes advantage of these
antibodies, transferring them to a
patient who is currently ill with the
virus and is in serious need of help.
“Hospitalized patients who received
the plasma within three days of
diagnosis, are under the age of 80
and not on mechanical ventilation,
benefited the most, with a 35%
improvement in survival 30 days
after receiving the transfusion,” the
Wall Street Journal reported. While
experts note that convalescent plasma
treatment doesn’t mean we don’t need
monoclonal antibody treatments or an
effective vaccine, this is nonetheless a
major step in the right direction. Even
small flickers of hope delivered by
treatments like convalescent plasma
mark significant strides from the
beginning of the pandemic, when we
knew nothing about how to combat
COVID-19.
Finally, beyond all of these
intriguing developments, the most
promising tool in our battle against
this pandemic is a safe and successful
vaccine, which we’re racing toward
in record time. Although there
are numerous vaccine candidates
in development across the globe,
American companies like Moderna
Therapeutics and Pfizer remain at
the forefront of this unprecedented
effort. With the vaccine being rolled
out so quickly, some people have
expressed concern that medical
officials are rushing the final stages
of development and testing due to
political pressure from President
Donald Trump, who is fighting for
a second term in the White House
against former Vice President Joe
Biden. But health officials have
repeatedly
reassured
Americans
that the final vaccine distributed to
patients across the country will be
safe and effective, and manufacturers
have pledged that they will not
release a vaccine to the general public
until it is safe for all Americans.
A
s schools around the country
reverse their face-to-face
reopening plans, it seems
less and less likely that the University
of Michigan will make it through the
first few weeks of classes with the
current hybrid model. If classes get
moved to be fully remote, the blame
will be shifted to students — it could
have worked, but we just weren’t
“responsible” enough.
In an interview with The Daily,
President
Mark
Schlissel
said
he “get(s) a little insulted when
everybody says there’s no way that
students are going to wear masks,
and there’s no way that they’re
not going to party in dangerous
fashions ... I think you can and will
step up as a community.”
Here’s the thing: Even if 99
percent of the U-M undergraduate
student body are compliant, choose
not to party, social distance and
wash their hands, we could
still have a massive community
outbreak. As of Aug. 6 — well before
tens of thousands of students from
around the country descended upon
Ann Arbor — a single gathering of
100 students at a party (one-third
of 1 percent of the undergraduate
population) carried between a 30
to 50 percent chance that someone
had COVID-19. It is probably much
higher now that students from states
with higher incidence rates have
returned to campus.
Furthermore, while partying
may be the most dangerous thing
college-aged students can do
right now, many students also
must work service industry jobs
which put them at risk. A recent
Atlantic article rightly pointed out
that a recent rise in cases in people
under 35 would be predictable
irrespective of parties, as newly-
opened restaurants and bars are
overwhelmingly staffed by young
people.
An outbreak would be difficult
to control even if every person on
campus were required to get tested,
but only students living on-campus,
about a quarter of students overall,
carry that requirement. One party is
enough for a residence hall outbreak,
or several. The problem is that
President Schlissel’s plan relies on
100 percent compliance, something
that he, as a medical professional and
rational adult, should understand is
utterly unrealistic. The opening of
campus isn’t a reasonable risk, it is
a recipe for a clusterfuck, as put so
eloquently by The Daily Tar Heel.
The confusing part is that
Schlissel understands compliance
is unrealistic. In an email to faculty
and staff on Aug. 18, he wrote, “after
a few weeks, non-compliance among
students might become common,” as
a way to defend why the University
will not be doing large-scale testing
on asymptomatic individuals. It
must take some mental gymnastics
to write an email effectively saying
there will be too much virus in the
community to test, but we are going
to open anyway. Research indicates
that in the case of coronavirus
testing, quantity is better than
quality, and testing all students every
two days is recommended. If this is
impossible, as Schlissel suggests, we
cannot open, period.
Personal
responsibility
is
important, but it is not the solution
to a public health crisis. Don’t
get me wrong, when I see people
posting pictures of their parties
and group events, I get angry. I
think it is selfish and irresponsible
to be hanging out in large groups
of people. That said, 20-year-olds
should not be responsible for the
health of the nation. Irresponsibility
is not a “risk” in the 18 to 22 year
old age group, it is a given. Willful
ignorance is the only explanation
for President Schlissel’s refusal to
recognize the impracticality of a
plan predicated on the notoriously
excellent
decision-making
skills
of young adults. Countries that
have
successfully
curbed
this
virus do not have supernaturally
responsible
young
people;
they
have competent leadership that
managed to control the virus before
widespread quarantine fatigue set
in. From New Zealand to Rwanda,
swift governmental response with
strong messaging and actions that
emphasized scientific expertise has
controlled, if not eliminated the virus.
President Schlissel is not a
governmental figure, but he does
have the power to make decisions
that will impact the health of tens
of thousands of people. He is
not making decisions in the best
interest of the U-M community or
the broader Ann Arbor community.
He is making decisions in the
best interest of the University’s
bottom line. One could argue this
is also a failure of the government
or at the least, a flaw in our system.
In countries where tuition is free, I
don’t think they are panicking about
enrollment numbers. Students have
every right to question whether an
online education is worth the same
cost (or 1.9 percent more). If school
were free, what would there be to
question?
The virus is not Schlissel’s fault
and the lack of control in this country
is not his fault, but any disease or
death that results from the opening
of campus? That is his fault. Schlissel
has all of the science he needs to see
that opening is not the way to go.
If a statement comes out blaming
students, I hope the Michigan
community calls it out. A plan that
relies on 100 percent compliance to
work is not a plan, it’s a prayer.
9 — Wednesday, September 16, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Why we must support GEO: The historical power of strikes at the University
BRITTANY BOWMAN | EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
The power of American innovation
EVAN STERN | COLUMNIST
Evan Stern can be reached at
erstern@umich.edu.
Jessie Mitchell can be reached at
jessiemi@umich.edu.
‘U’ is positioning students to take the fall
JESSIE MITCHELL | COLUMNIST
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Members of the Graduate Employee Organization strike in response to the University’s pandemic plan outside of the Biological Services Builiding Wednesday evening.
Allison Engkvist/Daily
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Brittany Bowman is the Editorial
Page Editor and a senior in the
College of Literature, Science &
the Arts and can be reached at
babowm@umich.edu.