Open Letter to President Coleman

I write to you today as a graduate student in history, a GSI in history,
and a member of GEO to request that you revisit the misguided
co-premium policies the Committee on Health Insurance Premium Design
(CHIPD) and Provost Courant are attempting to impose on GEO members. I am
concerned with the process by which this decision was reached, the
implications for how the university attempts to treat its employees and
the standing of the university as a progressive social force in the US. I
have a series of questions I’m hoping you can address to help me better
understand how these decisions were made and the reasoning behind them.

CHIPD represents a committee of, frankly, fairly well-off faculty members
and university administrators. Why did the committee not have
representatives from all groups affected by the changes in health
coverage? Were alternatives, such as sliding-scale payments, considered?
If not, why? While the committee has wrapped its explanations in the
language of shared sacrifice in a time of budget cuts, I fear, that due to
its makeup, it failed to take into consideration of how “equal” pay cuts
(and that’s what these new premiums are, for all effects) differently affect
employees making ,000 and 0,000 (or 5,000 for that matter).

Secondly, I am concerned at the university’s willingness to abrogate both
the spirit and the letter of GEO’s contract with the university. The time
to introduce such proposals to the union was in the most recent round of
contract negotiation. Why did the university not bargain these changes or
negotiate having unequivocal language placed in the contract? From my
perspective, it seems the administration is daring GEO to conduct a job
action.

Finally, I am concerned about what this change says about the university
as a responsible social actor. This university went to the mat to protect
affirmative action. This courageous political stance made me proud to be
affiliated with the university and I supported the University’s actions
with words and actions of my own (helping to organize Academics for
Affirmative Action and Social Justice and travelling to various court
hearings). Now, I am shocked to find myself questioning the university’s
committment to diversity. As many of the university’s opponents hammered
in the affirmative action cases, economic diversity is important as well
as racial diversity. When defending the university, its GEO contract, that
allows non-wealthy, non-elite students to afford graduate education,
helped me defend the university’s committment to economic as well as
racial and ethnic diversity. As I walk around campus and see the life
sciences buildings, witness and attend lavishly catered events for
visiting speakers, read the amount that university administrators are
being paid, see the renovations to your house (which look very nice), I
find the CHIPD changes that much more unbelievable. With all the changes
and building going on, why does the university need to cut the pay of some
of its lowest paid employees? What does it say about the University of
Michigan, an institution with a cherished history of
preserving public health through the Salk Vaccine, and its commitment
to be a responsible social actor, when the university is willing to price
health care beyond the means of graduate students with children? What more
does it say about the university when it is unwilling to pursue this
policy openly but instead attempts to impose it through administrative
fiat?

Thank you for your time and in advance for your response.

Sincerely
Andrew

——————————————————————————-