The opinions expressed here represent the views of the authors in their capacity as individual faculty members.

Paul Boghossian is a professor of philosophy, Ernest Davis is a professor of computer science, Edwin Gerber is a professor of mathematics, Sanford Gordon is a professor of politics, Sydney Ludvigson is a professor of economics, Mitchell Moss is a professor of urban policy and planning at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, Tony Movshon is a professor of neuroscience, Jeffrey Rubenstein is a professor of Talmud and Rabbinic literature in the Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies and Tessa West is a professor of psychology. 

Last Friday, the Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty Senators Council passed a resolution that opposed the university administration’s contingency planning, which has included requests for tenure-track faculty to cover contract faculty teaching in the event of a strike called by the Contract Faculty United. The resolution implies that by mitigating the impact of a strike, these requests “can interfere in the negotiation process itself, giving the administration an unfair advantage.” It also suggests that these requests “undermine faculty governance.”

Absent from the resolution is any consideration of the welfare of the most important stakeholders at this critical moment: our students.

This is regrettable. The university’s core mission, and our primary obligation as educators, is to ensure the continuity of the academic mission and the welfare of the students who have entrusted us with their education. Viewed in this light, efforts to mitigate the impact of a strike by ensuring that classes are taught, labs run and independent studies supervised do not “intervene” on behalf of the administration in a labor dispute; they are a fulfillment of the university’s duty to its students. While we take no position on the best way to achieve that goal in the event of a strike, we believe that it must remain a key priority.

The T-FSC resolution came as a surprise. We recognize that the T-FSC is a representative body that can, in principle, adopt resolutions on behalf of the faculty. However, we note a stark contrast in communication: While the resolution as adopted was broadly disseminated, there was no effective effort to solicit faculty views on the substance of the resolution beforehand. Given the weighty nature of this matter, the lack of visible consultation is concerning. If the T-FSC wishes to invoke the “Principles of Joint Shared Governance,” it must ensure that its recommendations are informed by a process transparent enough to truly reflect the diverse views of the faculty it represents.

We join the T-FSC’s call for NYU leadership to negotiate in good faith with CFU, and we support the efforts of our contract faculty colleagues to improve their lot. But we also insist that both the administration and CFU aim toward an agreement that respects the needs of all university stakeholders, especially students. Our overriding priority is their education and well-being. That commitment must be non-negotiable.

WSN’s Opinion desk strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion desk are solely the views of the writer.

Contact WSN’s Opinion desk at [email protected].