Graduate Students United at the University of Chicago
About Us
Graduate Students United is organized to support graduate student workers in the university. We take a broad definition of graduate student labor, although we primarily focus on the wage relationship. Our base is graduate student workers, but we aim for active solidarity with other workers in the university and the community of which the university is a part.
New to GSU? Got questions? Click on "read more" to get answers!
G.E.T.A. gotten; campaign to end AR fees goes on
Graduate Students United is pleased to announce Ryan Long as the winner of the G.E.T.A. (Graduate Emergency Tuition Aid) scholarship lottery, covering his out-of-pocket Advanced Residence tuition for 2009-10.
Over 100 applicants had their names in the GETA scholarship hat last Thursday, March 4, but only one lucky student went home with the prize. We congratulate Ryan Long--and we call on everyone to continue our campaign against AR tuition so that next time around we will all finish the day knowing we'll have money left for rent and time left to finish our dissertations.
Over 60 people attended the lottery drawing and GSU's subsequent march to the provost's office. Considering that AR students (including some 60 of our GETA applicants) are scattered across the globe, and considering that many of us are required to teach during the lunch hour (in yet another instance of administrative disregard for human decency), this turnout shows yet again the importance of ending AR tuition for U of C grad students. Participants in the march delivered "AR Trap" mousetraps to the provost, who however was not present to receive them, because he was meeting with the U of C's Board of Trustees at the business school's downtown conference center. The traps were left in his office for him when he returned.
To continue to push for an end to AR tuition:
1) Come to GSU's next regular meeting, this Tuesday at 5:30 in Haskell Hall room 102, to plan further action.
2) Join GSU or ask your colleagues to join GSU. Only with strength in numbers can we now force a change in the provost's decision.
What is the history of the campaign to eliminate AR tuition? Read on.....
Response to Provost's Decision on AR Tuition
On February 25th, 2010, the administration released the "Provost's Response to Graduate Education Committee Reports". It is available here: http://provost.uchicago.edu/news.shtml. We encourage you to consult the Provost's Response and read the administration's decision concerning issues of grave importance to students: unfair AR tuition burdens, teaching eligibility, and (the lack of) increased funding for dissertation writing periods. The Provost's Response is a reply to a number of student-faculty committees that provided reasonable -- though excessively modest -- recommendations for improving the graduate student experience and enabling us to continue to produce top-quality academic research.
Graduate Students United is profoundly disappointed by Provost Rosenbaum’s decision to ignore the Advanced Residency and Time to Degree Committee’s most crucial recommendations, including virtually all the recommendations that were designed to ease the financial burden of AR tuition. Over the past year, students, faculty and administrators have dedicated many hours working on the Advanced Residency and Time to Degree Committee, attended open forums to offer helpful suggestions, and took the time to share their deeply personal stories of financial burden and stress. Just this past week over 180 graduate students personally sent e-mails to Provost Rosenbaum, expressing the need for the administration to go beyond the Committee’s recommendations by removing AR tuition entirely.
With the release of the Provost’s Response on February 25, 2010, it is now clear that this good faith effort and trust in the University’s official procedures was in vain. Rosenbaum has taken the route of least financial flexibility and least administrative effort. The decision to ignore all of the Advanced Residency and Time to Degree Committee’s most substantial recommendations has shocked even the most cynical students amongst us. We are confronted with two questions: Why did we work on this process for over 1.5 years if the administration never had any intention of ratifying the key recommendations of the Committee? And why should we bother ever again to trust that such a process will result in fair treatment?



