By EZEKIEL KINGSBURY, ERIC SEO, CIAN McKEOWN
CORRECTION: The original version of this article asserted that the administration claims there was never a meeting where President Boynton “laughed” students out of the office, which was our understanding at the time based on administrative claims. On Wednesday morning, we were informed there was a meeting between student workers and the president, though the purpose of the meeting was apparently not clearly related to student work in the sense claimed by BSWU. (Wednesday, March 26, 2025, 10:04 a.m.)
On Thursday, March 20, after weeks of talks with the administration, Beloit Student Workers United (BSWU) came to an agreement with Beloit College Administration on the definition of a student worker and, thereby, an agreement for voluntary recognition if BSWU is successful in getting a majority of the student workers to sign with the union.
This is a commendable effort on the part of Jake Fein’27 and Ela Heywood’26, the leaders of this movement, whose relentless advocacy has galvanized peers and forced administrators to reckon with student worker concerns. Yet, as we transition from protest to practice, we urge BSWU to confront its contradictory narrative, reconcile clashing accounts with the administration, and weigh idealism against reality. This is a plea for clarity from those who share a desire for progress.
BSWU’s rallying cry for a ‘living wage’ strikes an emotional cord, but the nature of student work and Beloit’s financial realities should temper this idealism. Student work is, by its nature, supplementary. Students do not face the same financial pressures as non-students (e.g., rent, groceries), and when they do it is deferred. The difference between a student’s and a non-student’s financial necessity could not be more stark. However, students still depend on student work to some extent. Unless you work or are blessed with parental cash infusions, you will be unable to buy textbooks, afford clothes, or have fun.
Thus, a higher hourly wage sounds appealing, but the $900,000 student-work budget is fixed. At $8.25/hour, this funds 20 hours weekly for 600 students. Raising wages to, for example, $12/hour without budget growth would result in 30% fewer hours or jobs.
BSWU organizers acknowledge this; “Assuming no budget movement, hours will be cut,” Fein told us. It’s a zero-sum game: if pay goes up, hours or jobs go down — probably both.
So, who gets hurt by this? The first would be positions deemed ‘non-essential’ (i.e., jobs that could be performed by a helpful sign). Second, even if hours aren’t cut unilaterally, any cut would impact essential services at some point. Services such as DK’s, facilities, and the Morse Library rely on student labor. Any cut to their student hours may force non-student staff to shoulder heavier workloads. Fein acknowledges this, but also asserts that any adverse effect on non-student workers is “not our responsibility.” Heywood adds, “It’s not ideal… but if it proves a point about our conditions, I’m prepared to make that statement.”
This is a striking admission. BSWU leaders recognize that their demands may actively harm non-student workers but justify it as collateral damage for their broader movement. That selective concern for labor solidarity should give student workers pause, especially if they subscribe to the ideals of a workers’ union.
This laissez-faire attitude from union leadership regarding outside consequences may be detrimental to lasting gains and a healthy, collaborative relationship between the union and the college community. As a legitimate labor organization, it should be within the union’s principles to, at the very least, give lip service to non-student workers. We hope their priorities here will change.
A key point that the organizers of BSWU raise is that any increase in wages should be done through a tiered pay structure and that jobs requiring more effort should pay more than passive roles. But here’s the problem: the administration agrees. Tim Leslie, Vice President of Career & Professional Development and Executive Director of Impact Beloit, says, “We are absolutely open to a tiered system of pay. It makes sense. There are different types of jobs with different expectations and different types of work.” Why does the union frame such a demand as ‘the College not willing to compromise’? In recruitment materials, hyperbolic claims of conflict may provoke support, but they erode trust. If collaboration is possible, why default to adversarial posturing?
Also, the claim that certain departments and supervisors exercise “discriminatory practices” is frequently cited by organizers. In a recent news interview, Heywood even called working conditions “inhumane.” Heywood later clarified with the Round Table that she meant that it may be the case that “the treatment itself wasn’t inhumane, but it has created inhumane situations.” However, we do not see significant disparity between these two statements and find the latter unnecessarily confusing. Regardless, claiming inhumanity in the treatment, or the situations that treatment creates, is a distorted exaggeration of the truth.
While we can only speculate, we believe it is pertinent to note that this has been heavily investigated by the administration, and they have not found formal evidence. This, of course, does not mean discriminatory practices are not occurring, but it could mean that students are too frightened to speak up about this. If these discriminatory practices are as rampant as BSWU suggests, why aren’t students being encouraged to file formal complaints? If BSWU purports to support student workers, and the administration has no accounts of worker mistreatment, some of these incidents need to be shared as evidence. It feels insufficient to claim that excessive injustice exists without recording any of it.
BSWU’s rhetoric further muddies trust. Posts like “Check your privilege, it’s the difference between food and no food” energize supporters but risk alienating allies. Again, a misrepresentation and overstatement of truth seems only to provoke antipathy towards the College when we should be building a supportive community in solidarity. While Fein insists the union isn’t “antagonizing the college,” their messaging suggests otherwise. It is possible to unify without relying on hostility. If BSWU truly aims to build community, why does its public posture encourage hostility?
The contradiction deepens when considering non-student workers, as previously mentioned. Fein dismisses the union’s impacts on non-student staff as “not our responsibility,” yet these employees, who lack the privilege to unionize without risking their jobs (and wages actually vital for their survival), are essential to campus life. (While all employees legally have the ability to unionize, as students have a functionally different role and are privileged with more time and flexibility than non-student workers, the ability to unionize is substantively different.) Selective advocacy feels incongruent and inimical for a movement preaching solidarity.
As leaders of a campus organization ourselves, we also have doubts about sustainability. Getting people to show up to meetings is like pulling teeth. With the union’s proposed 30-person-leadership committee, we don’t believe those teeth will be any easier to pull. Right now there is a movement, there is energy, and, thus, finding hopefuls is not difficult.
The ongoing maintenance and management of the union is an especially important responsibility because unions are a legal structure governed by federal law, and the onus for this maintenance will be solely on the students. But once something becomes institutionalized and made banal, how will it sustain itself? Will this union outlive its founders’ graduation, or become yet another relic in Beloit’s history of fleeting activism? Fein floated national affiliation to address this, but that too brings the baggage of further legal complexity, compliance standards, and rigidity.
In the wake of the presidential election, the desire to act is understandable. There may be a feeling that, if reform cannot be implemented nationwide, we might as well start with our small, residential community: the idea that we can make things better for our neighbors.
The desire to act in defiance of political upheaval may eclipse self-interest. Is BSWU recruiting students with their ideas, or are they leveraging the liberal idealism disseminated throughout campus? Support for the new student union may originate from cancel-culture-adjacent fears herding students towards conformity. Speaking from experience, we have felt pressured to support BSWU without being presented with many facts. It seems that a pro-union stance is integral to the I’m-not-one-of-them liberal image, regardless of union specifics. We fear that performative liberal support without pause for thought may be harmful to the community.
We do not mean to say there is no value in activism as a community-building structure. However, if our primary goal is to build community, which it should be, we should go directly there: join clubs, make music, create art.
If you create an unnecessarily adversarial us-versus-them dynamic, you drive a wedge between an already fragmented community; you run the risk of killing the seed before it has even had a chance to sprout. With this union, we urge Beloit Student Workers United to change the pattern of its behavior and rhetoric. We urge good-faith collaboration, transparency, and consideration.
Featured Image: Ezekiel Kingsbury
Leave a Reply