Robert Pitts, a computer science teaching fellow, wrote a letter to the Free Press stating that the stipend hike should be implemented on all teaching fellow salaries. BU "should do the right thing," he wrote (Teaching Fellow pay discrepancies are 'insidious' Oct. 14).
What he and the rest of the TF's apparently do not understand is that BU is doing the right thing. BU is now poised to attract the best TFs while it keeps the older, more-experienced student teachers at the same rate. Boston University is a business. It has no morals or scruples. It seeks tangible results.
Boston University is being run the way it is supposed to. As a business, BU looks to minimize costs and maximize payoffs. It has chosen a course of action that fits that strategy. Clearly, the market is bearing the choice.
What if the teaching fellow stipend was reduced to $1? No TF in his right mind would accept it; he would quit. If every TF quit abruptly, BU would realize the market would not accept the stipend decrease and would raise the stipend to accommodate the market.
Rather than complain or write articles, the TFs--if they feel they deserve more and are being unfairly treated--should all come down with the flu in some form or another. Or, more subtly, they could let their department heads know that they might be getting sick (and staying home) if their stipends aren't large enough to accommodate adequate medical treatment.
But the TFs haven't. Each signed on knowing the stipend rate. There was no decrease. While it is frustrating watching less experienced people get paid more for the same job, it should be just chalked up to the market.
BU has made no pretense about it. It admits freely that to attract new TFs, it needs a greater stipend rate and won't increase existing TF stipends because, frankly, they aren't going anywhere.
None of this is new. To exist, businesses have to remain competitive. This is the market. It's why businesses tend to stay in business.
Ronny Carny
CAS '98