| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Higher Education Without Illusions. #accountability #adjunct #AI #AImeltdown #algo #alienation #anomie #anxiety #austerity #BDR #bot #boycott #climate #collegemania #collegemeltdown #crypto #divest #doomloop #edugrift #enshittification #FAFSA #greed #incel #jobless #kleptocracy #medugrift #moralcapital #nokings #nonviolence #PSLF #PXED #QOL #rehumanization #resistance #robocollege #robostudent #roboworker #solidarity #strikedebt #surveillance #temperance #TPUSA #transparency #Trump #veritas
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Graduate student workers at Penn have overwhelmingly authorized a strike — a decisive move in their fight for fair pay, stronger benefits, and comprehensive protections. The vote reflects not only deep frustration with stalled negotiations but also the growing momentum of graduate-worker organizing nationwide.
A year of bargaining — and growing frustration
Since winning union recognition in May 2024, GET‑UP has spent over a year negotiating with Penn administrators on their first collective-bargaining agreement. Despite 35 bargaining sessions and tentative agreements on several non-economic issues, key demands — especially around compensation, benefits, and protections for international students — remain unmet.
Many observers see the strike authorization as long overdue. “After repeated delays and insulting offers, this was the only way to signal our seriousness,” said a member of the bargaining committee. Support for the strike among graduate workers is overwhelmingly strong, reflecting a shared determination to secure livable wages and protections commensurate with the vital labor they provide.
From Nov. 18–20, GET‑UP conducted a secret-ballot vote open to roughly 3,400 eligible graduate employees. About two-thirds voted, and 92% of votes cast authorized a strike, giving the union discretion to halt academic work at a moment’s notice.
Striking graduate workers, many of whom serve as teaching or research assistants, would withhold all academic labor — including teaching, grading, and research — until a contract with acceptable terms is reached. Penn has drafted “continuity plans” for instruction in the event of a strike, which union organizers have criticized as strikebreaking.
GET‑UP’s contract demands include:
A living wage for graduate workers
Expanded benefits: health, vision, dental, dependent coverage
Childcare support and retirement contributions
Protections for international and immigrant students
Strong anti-discrimination, harassment, and inclusive-pronoun / gender-neutral restroom protections
While Penn has agreed to some non-economic protections, many critical provisions remain unresolved. The stakes are high: graduate workers form the backbone of research and teaching at the university, yet many struggle to survive on modest stipends.
Penn’s graduate workers are part of a broader wave of successful organizing by the United Auto Workers (UAW) and allied graduate unions. Recent years have seen UAW-affiliated graduate-worker locals achieve significant victories at institutions including Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, and across the University of California (UC) system.
At UC, a massive systemwide strike in 2022–2023 involving tens of thousands of Graduate Student Researchers (GSRs) and Academic Student Employees (ASEs) secured three-year contracts with major gains:
Wage increases of 55–80% over prior levels, establishing a livable baseline salary.
Expanded health and dependent coverage, childcare subsidies, paid family leave, and fee remission.
Stronger protections against harassment, improved disability accommodations, and support for international student workers.
Consolidation of bargaining units across ASEs and GSRs, strengthening long-term collective power.
These gains demonstrate that even large, resource-rich institutions can be compelled to recognize graduate labor as essential, and to provide fair compensation and protections. They also show that coordinated, determined action — including strike authorization — can yield significant, lasting change.
With strike authorization in hand, GET‑UP holds a powerful bargaining tool. While a strike remains a last resort, the overwhelming support among members signals that the union is prepared to act decisively to secure a fair contract. The UC precedent, along with wins at other UAW graduate-worker locals, suggests that Penn could follow the same path, translating student-worker momentum into meaningful, tangible improvements.
The outcome could have major implications not just for Penn, but for graduate-worker organizing across the country — reinforcing that organized graduate labor is increasingly a central force in higher education.
Across the United States, a quiet but unmistakable chill has settled over many college campuses. It isn’t the weather. It’s the behavior of a particular class of leaders—the college presidents whose decisions, priorities, and public personas have begun to feel, for lack of a better word, creepy. Not criminal, necessarily. Not always abusive in the legal sense. Just profoundly unsettling in ways that undermine trust, erode shared governance, and push higher education further into the shadows of authoritarianism and corporate capture.
This piece introduces criteria for what makes a college president “creepy,” highlights examples of the types of leaders who fit the mold, and invites reader feedback to build a more accountable public record.
“Creepy” here is not about personality quirks. It’s about behavior, power, and material consequences. Based on the reporting and analysis at HEI, we propose the following criteria:
Presidents who suppress speech, restrict student journalism, punish dissent, or hide behind overbroad “time, place, and manner” rules fall squarely into this category. The creepiness intensifies when universities hire outside PR firms or surveillance contractors to monitor campus critics, including students and faculty.
Presidents who treat students as risks rather than people, who hide data on assaults, who enable over-policing by campus security, or who weaponize conduct codes to silence protest movements—from Palestine solidarity groups to climate activists—fit the profile.
Administrators who undermine Title IX protections, retaliate against whistleblowers, protect abusive coaches, or ignore discrimination complaints are not just negligent—they’re institutionally creepy. Their public statements about “inclusion” often ring hollow when compared with their actions behind closed doors.
Union busting. Outsourcing. Wage stagnation. Anti-transparency tactics. Presidents who preach community while crushing collective bargaining efforts, freezing staff pay, or firing outspoken employees through “restructuring” deserve a place on any such list.
Presidents who sign glossy climate pledges yet continue fossil-fuel investments, partner with extractive corporations, or suppress environmental activism on campus epitomize a uniquely twenty-first-century creepiness: a willingness to sacrifice future generations to maintain donor relationships and boardroom comfort.
Rather than name only individuals—something readers can help expand—we outline several recognizable types. These composites reflect the emerging patterns seen across U.S. higher education.
Obsessed with “campus safety,” this president quietly expands the university’s security apparatus: license plate readers at entrances, contracts with predictive-policing vendors, facial recognition “pilots,” and backdoor relationships with state or federal agencies. Their speeches emphasize “community,” but their emails say “monitoring.”
This leader talks the language of innovation and social mobility while hiring anti-union law firms to intimidate graduate workers and dining staff. Their glossy strategic plans promise “belonging,” but their HR memos rewrite job classifications to avoid paying benefits.
Terrified of upsetting trustees, corporate sponsors, or wealthy alumni, this president cracks down on student protests, bans certain speakers, or manipulates disciplinary procedures to neutralize campus activism. They invoke “civility” while undermining the First Amendment.
This president loves diversity statements—for marketing. Meanwhile, they ignore racial harassment complaints, target outspoken faculty of color, or cut ethnic studies under the guise of “realignment.” Their commitment to equity is perfectly proportional to the next accreditation review.
At Earth Day, they pose with solar panels. In the boardroom, they argue that divesting from fossil fuels is “unrealistic.” Student climate groups often face administrative smothering, and sustainability staffers are rotated out when they ask uncomfortable questions.
Creepy leaders normalize:
an erosion of democratic rights on campus,
the quiet expansion of surveillance,
the targeting of vulnerable students and workers, and
a form of managerial governance that undermines the public purpose of higher education.
Higher education is supposed to be a refuge for inquiry, dissent, creativity, and collective imagination. Presidents who govern through fear—whether subtle or overt—pose a deeper threat than those who merely mismanage budgets. They hollow out the civic core of academic life.
HEI is building a more comprehensive and accountable registry of America’s Creepiest College Presidents, and we want your help.
Who on your campus fits these criteria?
Which presidents (past or present) deserve examination?
What specific stories, patterns, or documents should be highlighted?
What additional criteria should be added for future reporting?
Send your confidential tips, analyses, and suggestions. Together, we can shine light into administrative corners that have remained dark for far too long.
Higher Education Inquirer welcomes further input and encourages readers to share this article with colleagues, student groups, labor organizers, and university newspapers.
November 2025 HELU Chair's Message |
Billionaires and the ultra-wealthy have no place in setting the future agenda for higher ed. We – the students, community members, workers that actually make the campus work – do. |
Upcoming Events: |
|
Higher Ed Labor in the News: |
From the Blog: |
Michigan HELU Coalition hosts town hall for US Senate candidates |
In Michigan, the MI HELU coalition decided that we wanted to get ahead of the curve by providing candidates with a forum that focused exclusively on Higher Education and the challenges we are facing. |
|
Michigan November 7 Day of Action against Trump Compact |
Together, we’re fighting back against the demonization of higher ed and we won’t cave to governmental bullying to water down our education system with the goal of elimination. Our students deserve better, and so do we. |
Scholars for a New Deal for Higher Education (SNDHE) Continues Its Advocacy for Higher Education as a Public Good |
Founded in 2020 during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Scholars for a New Deal for Higher Education (SNDHE) is a group of teachers and researchers committed to rebuilding our colleges and universities so that they can be a true public resource for everyone. |
|
Federal Cuts, State Consequences: How Washington Is Bleeding New York |
And now [New York is] being punished by a federal government that sees organized labor, public education, and social investment as threats instead of strengths. |
Mandate to end remote work disrupts working conditions at University System of Georgia |
Public protest and influencing public opinion is keeping UCW (CWA Local 3821) busy. Members have been fighting fiercely to Defend Remote Work at their state institutions. |
Want to support our work? Make a contribution. |
We invite you to support HELU's work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU's main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement. |