UI graduate workers worried about potential for year-by-year funding negotiations

A few University of Iowa graduate workers have expressed concern about potential contract changes that could destabilize their future studies. The UI said it is working to ensure all students — potential or current — of specific contract contingencies that are tied to funding.
Campaign to Organize Graduate Students, or COGS, President Cary Stough said he spent much of Friday, March 14 speaking with faculty and university human resources staff to get more information on an alleged decision by the university to transition graduate student contracts from being funded through a set amount of years determined in the contract to being funded year-over-year.
This announcement and the lack of available information about how it will be enforced and its ensuing impact has graduate students scared and worried.
'If they weren't already freaking out or feeling precarious, they're feeling extremely precarious now,' Stough said.
More: 'Shell-shocked': Trans UI grad committed to local advocacy after new law strips protections
Contracts for international students are among Stough's biggest concerns, noting that there could be impacts on student visas if their holder's funding is suddenly gone.
According to a statement from the University of Iowa, provided over email by UI spokesperson Steve Schmadeke, 'graduate assistantship appointments have always been dependent on available funding,' with many UI programs having the information listed in admissions and employment communications.
'Given the current uncertainties in the funding environment, the university believes it is important to ensure that all prospective and admitted graduate students are fully aware of the contingencies that come with financial support,' the statement read.
Some UI departments have already felt devastating blows from canceled funding, including the International Writing Program, Iowa Flood Center and Iowa Geological Survey.
More: Nearly $1 million in grant funding for the UI's International Writing Program has been 'terminated'
The UI said in its statement it 'is not aware' of any graduate student admission or employment offers being rescinded. At Iowa State University, some offers to prospective graduate students that hadn't been accepted yet have been rescinded due to funding uncertainty.
More: Iowa State graduate students grapple with rescinded offers amid 'funding uncertainties'
All university units with graduate students have been encouraged by the UI to 'clearly outline the contingencies that come with financial support in their admissions and employment offers' for both prospective and enrolled graduate students, according to the statement.
'This clarification does not reflect a change in policy or a withdrawal of any existing agreements,' the statement read.
Stough said many, but not all, departments already had language like this in their contracts, but it has been expanded to the whole university now. His own contract as a doctoral student in the university's English department is slated for seven years, with the money to pay him earmarked for the duration of the contract. Going to a year-to-year policy could free up funds for areas seeing negative impacts of federal actions, like pausing funding and canceling projects.
Templates of graduate teaching appointment letters from the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 academic years both have 'availability of funding' listed as a determining factor in whether contract renewals are approved.
The template for the upcoming academic year, listed online as being updated March 14, also lists funding availability as a contingency for appointment, while the current year template lists 'examples of possible contingencies,' but does not include funding. It does say different programs may have different examples to list when creating a specific appointment letter.
More: UI graduate students rally for higher wages outside President Wilson's office
With the current lack of information from the university on timelines and other information relating to potentially losing their funding, Stough said there are really only two options for graduate students who don't get funded — take on all of the cost burdens of graduate education without the aid that was previously provided, or drop out.
'That's really the stakes here,' Stough said. 'We don't get paid enough year-to-year as graduate workers, we know that, but we just certainly do not get paid enough to, if we're told we're not going to get funding, to turn around and start paying for our education.'
Find this story at Iowa Capital Dispatch, which is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions:kobradovich@iowacapitaldispatch.com.
This article originally appeared on Iowa City Press-Citizen: Are University of Iowa graduate students facing funding cuts?

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

3 hours ago

• The Hill

Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.

Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.

Yahoo

11 hours ago

• Yahoo

The US has changed the course of the conflict - how will Iran respond?

As Benjamin Netanyahu stood at the podium in the Israeli prime minister's office this morning, he did not at first address the Israeli people in Hebrew, to update them on the latest, dramatic development in this, his latest war. Instead he spoke in English, speaking directly to, and lavishing praise upon, US President Donald Trump after the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites. If Netanyahu's tone was triumphant, and the smile barely suppressed, it is hardly surprising. He has spent most of his political career obsessed with the threat he believes Iran poses to Israel. Netanyahu has spent much of the last 15 years attempting to persuade his American allies that only military action (and only American munitions) could destroy Iran's nuclear weapons programme. While congratulating Trump for a bold decision that "will change history", Netanyahu can also congratulate himself on changing the mind of a US president who campaigned against overseas military adventures, and whose supporters were overwhelmingly opposed to joining Israel's war against Iran. Follow live updates It should also be noted that Trump's own intelligence agencies had not shared Israel's assessment of how quickly Iran could seek to build a nuclear weapon, nor indeed whether it had taken the decision to do so. Throughout this conflict, which began just 10 days ago, Israel's government and military have insisted that Israel had the capacity to deal with the Iranian threat on its own. But it was no secret that only America possessed the massive ordnance capable of dealing with the strongest levels of protection around Iran's nuclear facilities, particularly at Fordo, built deep inside a mountain. If the nuclear sites bombed last night are now indeed out of use then Israel's prime minister will be able to declare his main war aim complete, perhaps bringing this conflict closer to an end. For its part, Iran says it had already moved its nuclear material out. But without last night's bombing, Israel would have continued working its way down the long list of targets its air force has spent years drawing up. Damage would continue to have been inflicted on the Iranian military, on its commanders, on nuclear scientists, on government infrastructure and on the parts of the nuclear programme accessible to Israel's bombs. But Netanyahu may have been denied a clear point at which Israel could say the nuclear threat had been definitively neutralised. Perhaps only regime change in Iran could have delivered that moment. The B2 bombers have undoubtedly changed the trajectory of the war. Whether it escalates even further will depend on how Iran and its allies respond. Last week Iran's supreme leader had vowed to hit back at the US were it to enter the war. "The Americans should know that any US military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said. Only on Saturday the Houthi group in Yemen - staunch Iranian allies - had threatened to attack US ships transiting through the Red Sea if America entered the war. American military personnel, businesses, and citizens in the region are now potential targets. Iran can strike back in multiple ways, should it so chose, attacking US warships, or bases in the Gulf, and potentially disrupting the flow of oil from the Gulf, and sending the price of petrol soaring. The US has signalled that, for now, its military action is over, and it has no interest in bringing down the government in Tehran. That may encourage Iran to limit its response, perhaps attacking US targets in ways that do not lead to high casualties, or using proxies in the region to do the same. Iran chose to follow this course after Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qasem Soleimani in 2020. On Saturday night, the US president repeated his own threat to Iran, to use overwhelming force to counter any retaliation. This morning the whole of the Middle East is holding its breath, waiting to see whether this marks the beginning of the end of this conflict, or the beginning of an even more deadly phase to the war. What we know about US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities Trump's Iran gamble fraught with risk - at home and abroad

Politico

13 hours ago

• Politico

New Texas law requires 10 Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas will require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments under a new law that will make the state the nation's largest to attempt to impose such a mandate. Gov. Greg Abbott announced Saturday that he signed the bill, which is expected to draw a legal challenge from critics who consider it an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. A similar law in Louisiana was blocked when a federal appeals court ruled Friday that it was unconstitutional. Arkansas also has a similar law that has been challenged in federal court. The Texas measure easily passed in the Republican-controlled state House and Senate in the legislative session that ended June 2. 'The focus of this bill is to look at what is historically important to our nation educationally and judicially,' Republican state representative Candy Noble, a co-sponsor of the bill, said when it passed the House. Abbott also signed a bill that allows school districts to provide students and staff a daily voluntary period of prayer or time to read a religious text during school hours. The Ten Commandments laws are among efforts, mainly in conservative-led states, to insert religion into public schools. Texas' law requires public schools to post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship. Supporters say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States' judicial and educational systems and should be displayed. Opponents, including some Christian and other faith leaders, say the Ten Commandments and prayer measures infringe on others' religious freedom. A letter signed this year by dozens of Christian and Jewish faith leaders opposing the bill noted that Texas has thousands of students of other faiths who might have no connection to the Ten Commandments. Texas has nearly 6 million students in about 9,100 public schools. In 2005, Abbott, who was state attorney general at the time, successfully argued before the Supreme Court that Texas could keep a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of its Capitol. Louisiana's law has twice been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, first by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles and then again by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also considers cases from Texas. State Attorney General Liz Murrell said she would appeal and pledged to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.