The Writing on the Wall: Harvard’s Labor Dispute and the Future of Higher Education
Harvard University, a name synonymous with academic excellence, is currently embroiled in a labor dispute that’s far more revealing than it initially seems. The Harvard Academic Workers Union-United Auto Workers (HAW-UAW) has filed an unfair labor practice charge against the institution, accusing it of unilaterally increasing class sizes in its Expository Writing program—a move that, on the surface, might appear administrative but carries profound implications for both educators and students.
What’s Really at Stake Here?
Let’s start with the facts: Harvard plans to increase enrollment caps in its “Expos Studio 10” course from 10 to 15 students per section. On paper, this is a 50% increase in class size. But what makes this particularly fascinating is the context in which it’s happening. HAW-UAW, representing over 2,600 non-tenure-track faculty and postdoctoral researchers, has been in contract negotiations with Harvard since September 2024. Under the National Labor Relations Act, employers are required to maintain existing working conditions during such negotiations. Harvard’s decision to alter class sizes without bargaining feels like a deliberate sidestep of this obligation.
Personally, I think this isn’t just about workload—it’s about power dynamics. Harvard’s move sends a clear message: we hold the cards, and we’re not afraid to play them. But what many people don’t realize is that this isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a broader trend in higher education where institutions are increasingly prioritizing efficiency over quality, often at the expense of both educators and students.
The Human Cost of Efficiency
One thing that immediately stands out is the impact on instructors. Amy Hanes, a preceptor in the Expository Writing program, notes that smaller class sizes allow students to build confidence alongside writing skills. Larger classes, she argues, will dilute the individualized support that’s crucial for students from diverse backgrounds, including veterans and first-generation college students.
From my perspective, this raises a deeper question: What does education mean when it’s stripped of its personal touch? Writing isn’t just about grammar and structure; it’s about expression, identity, and growth. Larger class sizes threaten to turn a transformative experience into a transactional one.
Margaret Deli, another instructor, highlights the logistical challenges. With more students, providing detailed feedback and holding one-on-one meetings becomes nearly impossible. This isn’t just about workload—it’s about the quality of education Harvard is willing to deliver. If you take a step back and think about it, this dispute is a microcosm of the tensions between institutional priorities and educational values.
The Broader Implications
What this really suggests is that Harvard’s actions are symptomatic of a larger issue in academia. Non-tenure-track faculty, who make up a significant portion of the higher education workforce, are often treated as disposable labor. Their concerns are brushed aside in favor of administrative efficiency and cost-cutting measures.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the timing of this dispute. HAW-UAW is currently conducting a strike authorization vote, and tensions are at an all-time high. Harvard’s decision to increase class sizes feels like a calculated move to undermine the union’s bargaining power. It’s a classic example of how institutions can exploit their authority to maintain control.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for Higher Education?
If the National Labor Relations Board rules in favor of HAW-UAW, it could force Harvard back to the bargaining table. But even if that happens, the damage may already be done. The trust between the university and its academic workers has been fractured, and the long-term consequences for student learning could be significant.
In my opinion, this dispute is a wake-up call for the entire higher education sector. As institutions grapple with financial pressures and shifting priorities, they must ask themselves: Are we here to educate, or are we here to optimize? The answer will shape the future of academia for generations to come.
Final Thoughts
Harvard’s labor dispute isn’t just about class sizes or contract negotiations. It’s about the soul of education. Personally, I think this is a moment for all of us—educators, students, and administrators—to reflect on what we value most. If we allow institutions to prioritize efficiency over humanity, we risk losing what makes education meaningful in the first place.
What many people don’t realize is that this isn’t just Harvard’s problem—it’s everyone’s problem. The decisions made in this dispute will set a precedent for how academic labor is treated across the country. And that, in my opinion, is what makes this story so much more than a local labor dispute. It’s a battle for the future of higher education itself.
