On July 1, the collective bargaining agreement between Brown and the Graduate Labor Organization — which had been in place since 2023 — expired with no replacement. The same day, Provost Francis Doyle III and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham wrote in Today@Brown regarding the state of negotiations for a new contract with graduate student workers. Doyle and Latham author a narrative of a paternalistic administration responding graciously to extravagant demands from RIFT-AFT Local 6516, the parent organization of GLO.
In their words, Brown’s graduate students receive “support ... unmatched by nearly any other institution,” making our proposal of annual raises of 12%, 11% and 10% seem ungrateful. Their counterproposal, however, boils down to the comparatively small increments of 0% for the current fiscal year, 1.5% for FY 2028–30 and 2% in FY 2031. By compounding these meager numbers into the 6.7% figure over five years, Doyle and Latham frame the University’s offer as magnanimous.
Brown’s graduate students live in a city that has been named the least affordable market for renters in the United States. The city’s July 2026 median asking rent of $2,281 represents more than 50% of the pre-tax monthly stipend Brown proposes for the current fiscal year, and it is not unheard of for Providence renters to face hikes of as much as $1,000 on their monthly rents. While the Today@Brown announcement frames the University’s current compensation as groundbreaking compared to peers, in reality, it is merely adjusted for the city’s relatively steep cost of living. That Brown graduate students are compensated better than colleagues at many peer institutions does nothing to offset the real rising cost of their housing, yet Doyle and Latham offer this fact, in all apparent earnestness, to justify their offer of a 0% raise this academic year.
The letter similarly glosses over the contribution of graduate students appointed as fellows. Fellows, in the words of Doyle and Latham, “are not required to perform services to Brown... in exchange for their funding,” and so the union is painted as wrong to seek their recognition under the contract. They do not acknowledge the over 100 testimonials sent to the provost regarding services graduate students on fellowship provide to the University. But acknowledging those services would align with existing practice: the University of Rhode Island’s current collective bargaining agreement with graduate students recognizes internal fellows. The least administrators might do is engage with the more than 70% of fellows who sought recognition by our union rather than offer a perfunctory denial of their hard work.
Doyle and Latham’s selective characterization of the bargaining process culminates in a complete omission of our disagreement over the right of graduate students to grieve instances of discrimination or harassment through an independent procedure. Brown proposes to strip language from our contract that allows an independent arbitrator to determine whether the University is responsible for discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Instead, the University wishes to review issues of harassment through its own Office of Equity Compliance and Reporting.
Brown’s history of dealing with claims of discrimination and harassment through its internal offices inspires no confidence. A Title IX class action suit filed against the University in 2021 detailed a litany of cases in which survivors of sexual assault and abuse were allegedly discouraged from pursuing formal complaints. Another suit against Brown noted that its Title IX office took nearly 6 months to issue the critical findings of its investigation.
In contrast, the expired independent grievance procedure can move forward to scheduling a hearing with an arbitrator in roughly one month. The language of our grievance article holds the University to strict timelines in responding to alleged violations of the contract, whereas Brown’s Title IX policy offers only that processing of a “formal resolution process may take approximately 90 business days.” The material advantage of the independent procedure played out in one notable case where a survivor of an alleged sexual assault was able to access paid time away after it at first had been denied to her by the University; her use of the independent procedure followed the dropping of a related Title IX filing some nine months after the initial report. We fear that future, similar cases may not be resolved so favorably for those discriminated against or harassed at work if the administration has its way.
While our members will welcome proposals from management that address their needs, Doyle and Latham’s implication that the administration has offered such proposals “in good faith” to date is disingenuous. Moving forward, I would encourage the broader Brown community to speak with graduate students themselves about their experience at the bargaining table rather than rely on University communications. You might find their perspective more relatable than that of the guy living in a $2.5 million house on Brown’s dime.
Michael Ziegler GS is the president of labor union Local 6516. He can be reached at michael_ziegler@brown.edu. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
