Is My Chancellor Breaking Up With Me? Faculty Notes from the UAW 4811 Strike at UCSC

Is My Chancellor Breaking Up With Me? Faculty Notes from the UAW 4811 Strike at UCSC

Is My Chancellor Breaking Up With Me? Faculty Notes from the UAW 4811 Strike at UCSC

By : Muriam Haleh Davis

On 15 May, often known as the “Nakba Day” to commemorate the 750,000 forced to flee their homes in 1948, the UAW 4811 authorized a strike based on an Unfair Labor Practice. Students, academic workers and faculty, enraged by the current genocide in Palestine and their universities’ complicity in the violence, had set up peaceful encampments across the UC System. The UCLA administration allowed them to be attacked by far-right vigilantes before calling the LAPD to forcibly sweep the camp, injuring and arresting 210 protestors.

Faculty such as myself watched these events in horror. Was it possible that the UC administration had actively taken steps to physically harm our colleagues and students? The answer is yes. Even though the encampments have been relatively peaceful on my campus at UCSC, the UAW 4811, which called for a “stand up” strike, began here. UCLA and UC Davis will be “standing up” and going on strike on Tuesday, 28 May.

None of these events prepared me for what has happened this week, which, admittedly, did not involve flash bangs that were deployed at UCLA. As faculty weighed their options, deciding if and how to be in solidarity with the strike, our Chancellor and EVC unilaterally (allegedly “in collaboration” with the faculty senate) decided to move our classes to Zoom. The picket was peaceful, traffic moved on and off campus with no issues, and yet we were told that it was “protest disruptions” that drove their decision to put faculty – and the undergraduates we allegedly serve – back into the black hole of Zoom instruction. 

To add insult to injury, some of us, concerned about students who preferred to meet in person decided to teach in our classrooms with an online option. Frustrated that we were once again having to deal with different “modalities,” and the extra labor that implies, some colleagues tried to go to campus, only to find that our classrooms had been locked. I tend to associate being suddenly locked out with relationships that ended badly, not with the actions of my university. Which led me to wonder: is my Chancellor trying to break up with me? 

In many ways, the answer is again yes. In this case, it’s nothing personal. I am a member of our faculty union (the Santa Cruz Faculty Association), which has been regularly informing colleagues of their rights and responsibilities during labor actions. At the moment we are involved in a “war of FAQs” (a key weapon in all bureaucratic wars). There were two main battles: whether this strike is truly “unlawful” and whether faculty actions in solidarity with the strike (ranging from refusing to do the grading of our striking graduate workers to withholding our own labor) are protected. There are complicated legal reasons –elegantly laid out by UCLA Law Professor Noah Zatz – why the UAW may have the right to strike over an Unfair Labor Practice even with a no-strike clause. Indeed, just yesterday PERB (the Public Employment Relations Board) ruled in favor of the UAW and against the UC's request for an injunction.

My union (the collective bargaining unit for senate faculty) also maintains that faculty have the right to be in active solidarity, which is a protected right under HEERA (the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act). Yet myself and my colleagues have received a barrage of confusing, and intimidating, messages implying otherwise.This labor strike, which builds off the momentum of the encampments, is a historic strike in that it resists the Cold War logic (inscribed in the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the NLRA) to depoliticize labor and limit it to economic demands rather than political grievances. As those who study the Middle East and Arab Uprisings know, this line has always been spurious; there is no such thing as an apolitical economic demand. 

Yet I will concede the following: this strike is political in a new way. It connects American foreign policy to the laboring conditions of academic workers and demands not only the physical safety of those of us who work in universities, but also calls for disclosure around the financing of higher education so that we may work for a university which is not complicit in arms manufacturing and war. The UC is quite happy to brag about student activism and divestment when it comes to Apartheid South Africa, or even fossil fuel divestment, but once again, we are faced with a “Palestine exception.” 

Some of this background may explain my Chancellor’s desire to lock me out of my own classroom. But let’s be clear: this decision was not taken to handle “disruptions” created by those at the picket, it was a strikebreaking tool. Except that the "break-up note" from my Chancellor, normally expected to offer closure, will likely take the form of another misleading FAQ.

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Muriam Haleh Davis, Markets of Civilization: Islam and Racial Capitalism in Algeria (New Texts Out Now)

      Muriam Haleh Davis, Markets of Civilization: Islam and Racial Capitalism in Algeria (New Texts Out Now)

      This book came out of my PhD dissertation, which was focused on late colonial development in Algeria. While the book is a very substantial revision of that project, there were a number of questions that led me to tackle the relationship between economic development and decolonization as a graduate student: How did economic planning as a discipline account for the cultural and religious specificity of Algerian Muslims?

    • Macron’s Speech Purposefully Misdiagnosed the Real Issues Facing the French Republic

      Macron’s Speech Purposefully Misdiagnosed the Real Issues Facing the French Republic

      On 19 March 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke at a ceremony commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the Evian Accords. This agreement between the French state and the Algerian FLN (National Liberation Front) introduced a cease-fire in the midst of a violent war of liberation (1954-1962), paving the way for Algerian independence. This speech was Macron’s most recent attempt to “calm” the polemics that surround the historical memory of the war. Previous acts include his statement that the French colonization of Algeria constituted a “crime against humanity,” his commemoration of the massacre of Algerians in Paris on 17 October 1961, and his acknowledgement of the role of the French state in the torture and murder of French communist Maurice Audin (1932–57). Macron claims these gestures will help foster a “reconciliation” between France and Algeria and allow different groups in the French Republic to peacefully co-exist (vivre ensemble).

    • The Algerian Archive between Two Revolutions

      The Algerian Archive between Two Revolutions

      On March 25, 2021, the front page of the Francophone opposition paper in Algeria, El Watan, featured the headline: “Historians demand the opening of the archives.” A large photo of the national archives accompanied excerpts from a letter expressing the dismay of Algerian historians who cannot access documents that are “legally available (communicables), particularly those relating to the nationalist movement and the Algerian revolution.”[1] Why is the claim that citizens should be able to consult the historical record on the War of Independence so sensitive? And why has the issue re-emerged at this particular moment? 

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 


[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412