{shortcode-3458a367ab8215f0fc233bb77a39203608b19b62}

Updated November 13, 2025, at 12:25 p.m.

As Harvard limps through its fight with Washington, it risks leaving its own workers behind.

Last month, nearly 1,300 non-tenure-track faculty signed a petition to University leadership demanding a union contract amid drawn-out negotiations. From increased austerity measures to consistent federal pressures, the University has had much on its plate over the past year. But the concerns of its workers — a population especially vulnerable to belt-tightening — cannot be sidelined.

Over the past two years, Harvard has mounted a stirring defense of higher education. From repeatedly refusing to give in to the Trump administration’s demands to suing the government to defend research funding and international students, Harvard has repeatedly put aside its short-term political and financial interests for the greater good. But the University’s actions on labor issues have been far less inspiring.

Over the summer, Harvard removed over 800 students from its graduate student union, effectively decreasing that union’s bargaining power. Moreover, after Harvard Academic Workers-United Auto Workers, which represents thousands of non-tenure-track faculty, voted to unionize in April 2024, negotiations have barely moved: Following over a year of bargaining on their first-ever contract, Harvard and the union appear nowhere near an agreement.

While such a timeline is not completely out of the ordinary for union negotiations, progress has advanced at a snail’s pace during a crucial period for non-tenure-track workers — and critical demands have yet to be met.

Despite provisionally agreeing to axe time caps, which severely limit the length of non-tenure-track appointments for some positions, the University has repeatedly refused to suspend or remove time caps during bargaining. As a direct result, many non-ladder faculty reaching the end of their limited appointments have been forced out — leaving many departments without replacement workers amid a University-wide hiring freeze.

Of course, Harvard faces difficult constraints — in the face of financial uncertainty, there will inevitably be painful cost-cutting, from aforementioned hiring freezes to reduced graduate admissions. Yet the University has shown its ability to offer reasonable help to those in need: It has assisted international students with summer housing amid visa uncertainty and even expanded financial aid. Harvard should likewise make an effort to meet the non-economic demands of unions in the interim.

Abolishing time caps as soon as possible — for all positions, and before bargaining is complete — would be a good place to start. Two years ago, this Board argued for carve outs for exceptional faculty but fell short of advocating for abolishment. Today, we urge the total abolition of the time cap system for the sake of both non-tenure-track faculty and the essential teaching services they provide.

In trying times, unions also serve as a moral voice on issues facing our campus, such as free speech — the University’s removal of a Black Lives Matter sign from two professors’ office windows over the summer was protested by three Harvard unions. With tangible bargaining power, unions can keep Harvard principled and honest in trying times. But that role requires them to negotiate with Harvard and see real results — if negotiations last forever, unionization cannot serve its purpose.

As Harvard fights battles far outside its campus walls, it should resolve its internal disagreements with its own community. In the face of hardship for Harvard affiliates of all stripes, it is more important than ever that Harvard and HAW-UAW come to an agreement that protects academic workers and gives them the rights they deserve.

Times are tough. With outside threats knocking, Harvard should take care of its own.

Correction: November 13, 2025

A previous version of this piece incorrectly stated that the University agreed to a Memorandum allowing contract extensions for 2026-2027. In fact, the University did not sign the Memorandum.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.