I write to share more widely my response to a question about faculty unionization that was asked at the Faculty Town Hall today. Since I began in July, Interim Provost Lisa Kloppenberg and I have worked with you to foster a culture of deeper trust and respect on campus. We have listened to a range of opinions about the desire among some adjunct faculty and lecturers to form a union.

Even as our opinions differ, it is very important to remind ourselves of the common ground on which we stand together. We value the contributions of our colleagues who serve as adjunct faculty and lecturers. With passion and professionalism, they devote their skills as teachers for the good of our students. They are deeply committed to our mission. We also hear the practical challenges many face living and working in a very costly region. Our tenure-stream faculty and staff members share many of these challenges.

I believe our best form of association is our collaborative governance process, which has yielded significant progress. We are committed to continued progress for the good of our students and community.

At the same time, I reaffirm the right of our adjunct faculty and lecturers to have an election under the National Labor Relations Act. For over 80 years, in a variety of political climates, this law has protected workers by providing clarity of process and fairness for those who want to form a union and those who don’t as well as for the employer. The Act also provides finality: we know the result and it is certified. The process is supervised by the National Labor Relations Board regional office in Oakland. This is why I support the NRLA process rather than the “in house” vote. We will support the final outcome of the NLRA process.

The NRLA process is the standard way to unionize. Exceptions like an “in-house” vote are rare. In the last year or so there have been at least five faculty elections, including at Fordham, that went through the NLRA. Adjunct faculty at Georgetown unionized through the NRLA when I was serving as an adjunct faculty member and administrator there.

Additionally, these are the same provisions governing our relationship with our groundskeepers and maintenance employees, who voted to form a union under the NRLA. As president, I have the responsibility to consider the best interests of all our employees, and the best interest is to follow the same legal process for everybody. I must take the perspective of not only this historical moment, but consider the impact of our decisions on the university’s future.

As I have listened to some faculty, I have heard concern that we might invoke what is called the “religious exemption.” This is a right under the law for a religious organization to claim that the National Labor Relations Board cannot assert jurisdiction over certain employees of the organization.

I assure you that we will not in this instance invoke the religious exemption. Here we find more common ground.  We affirm our identity as a Jesuit, Catholic university and believe strongly that each of us expresses that mission in unique ways, particular to one’s personal convictions and role here. However, because the right of workers to associate is a bedrock principle of Catholic social teaching, I will not assert the exemption in this case. (The exemption might be invoked relative to the Jesuit School of Theology given its unique mission in serving the Church).

There are no adversaries here. Our adjunct faculty and lecturers are our colleagues and friends. We may disagree at times, but we do so with respect and kindness, presuming the good will of one another. And we work together as educators focused on the best interests of our students, for whom access and affordability of a Santa Clara education are also central concerns.

Given her responsibility to work with all of our faculty, I have asked Lisa Kloppenberg to be the point person on these matters. May we move forward with respect and concern for all members of our community.