The basics
What is the carve-out, and why does it matter?
The basics
What is the carve-out, and why does it matter?
Your PI just screamed at you in front of the lab.
Or a TA you mentor tells you what their advisor said behind a closed door. Pick the one that landed nearest.
What can you actually do about it tomorrow?
Honestly? Right now — almost nothing. There's no rulebook you can point at. No clock anyone has to answer on. No outside referee you can call. UVM decides if it was a problem, UVM decides what to do about it, and you find out when they tell you.
That gap is what the rest of this page is about. Below is the short version of how a contract changes that answer — and the specific fight we're in right now to make sure it actually does.
So what's the contract, exactly?
A contract is a list of promises UVM has to keep, in writing, that they can't quietly change later. That's it. That's the whole thing.
Right now there isn't one. UVM sets the rules "at its sole discretion" — their phrase, not ours — and can move them whenever they want. A contract freezes the promises in place: stipend floors, training, harassment protections, the lot.
Right now
UVM writes the rules, edits the rules, and decides what the rules mean. No version is binding next year.
With a contract
The rules are listed, signed, and locked in. Change requires going back to the table — both sides.
OK, a list of promises. But what if UVM breaks one?
A promise nobody can enforce isn't a promise. It's a vibe.
So every real contract needs a way to force UVM to keep its word when they don't. That mechanism has a name — it's the thing labor lawyers call grievance and arbitration. You'll see those two words a lot. They are not as complicated as they sound. Two sentences each, next beat.
A rule UVM can break with no consequence isn't a rule. It's a suggestion.
Grievance and arbitration — in human words.
Grievance
You officially say, in writing, “you broke a rule.” UVM has to respond on a clock — not when they feel like it. Specific dates, written into the contract.
Arbitration
If UVM says “no we didn't,” you don't have to just take their word for it. A neutral outsider — not UVM, not the union — looks at the facts and decides. UVM has to obey.
Without it, UVM is the referee for its own fouls.
That's the whole sentence. Hold onto it. Beat 5 is going to ask you to be angry about a referee that isn't there — and you can only be angry about a missing referee if you already know there's supposed to be one.
And what does “Non-Discrimination” mean as a contract article?
When people hear "Non-Discrimination," they usually think: there's already a policy, I'm fine. That's half right. The policy exists. The question this article answers is the other half — can you call a foul and get the referee when the policy gets broken?
That's the difference between Non-Discrimination as a posted policy and Non-Discrimination as a contract article. The article is the promise PLUS the enforcement.
Title IX
UVM's own office. UVM investigates, UVM decides, UVM responds. Federal law sets the floor; UVM runs the process.
The contract route
Adds an outsider. Same incident, but now there's a second door: file a grievance, run the clock, and if UVM disagrees, a neutral arbitrator decides. Title IX still exists. This is in addition to it, not instead.
One sentence to keep in your head: Title IX is UVM judging UVM. The contract route adds someone who isn't UVM.
Now the turn
UVM agreed to a referee for almost every promise in the contract. For one promise — the Non-Discrimination one — they wrote it so the referee never gets called. The promise exists on paper. The way to call a foul does not. The next sections show, in order, exactly how that was done, who else has the referee (a lot of people), what UVM will say about it (three predictable lines), and what happens to a real graduate worker when the referee is missing. ↓
The core case
One phrase quietly undoes the protection.
The core case
One phrase quietly undoes the protection.
A right you can't enforce isn't a right.
Both sides agree there should be a grievance procedure to enforce the contract. The fight is whether Non-Discrimination — race, disability, sex, gender, bullying — is enforceable through it. UVM's counter says no. The union says yes.
Tale of Two Systems
The same problem, two very different paths.
Tale of Two Systems
The same problem, two very different paths.
If a graduate worker is harassed or discriminated against, this is what changes depending on which path runs.
UVM-only path
What UVM is proposing
Union path
What we're bargaining for
- Who makes the final call✕UVM alone.✓A neutral outside arbitrator.
- Fixed timelines at each step✕None — investigation runs at UVM's discretion.✓Guaranteed at every step of the grievance procedure.
- Union representative with you✕No.✓Yes, from Step 1 onward.
- Covers race, disability, and bullying — not just sex / gender✕Bullying isn't protected under UVM's existing policies. Other grounds vary by office and aren't fully covered.✓Yes — bullying is named, and every Non-Discrimination violation is grievable.
- Supportive measures (new workstation, supervisor change, no-contact)✕At UVM's sole discretion; can be denied; no timeline.✓You can request them yourself with a clear, time-bound process.
The Rutgers ruling
But didn't a court just rule against this?
The Rutgers ruling
But didn't a court just rule against this?
The Rutgers ruling
But didn't a court just rule against this?
In January 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a union couldn't take a Title IX firing to arbitration. You will hear this case again — so here is what it actually says.
What UVM will say
A harasser was fired. His union grieved the firing and demanded arbitration — and the court blocked it: Title IX preempts the grievance procedure. Quoted from across the table, it sounds like game over for grievable discrimination.
What the ruling actually says
The procedure didn't fail because discrimination was grievable. It failed because the contract let the accused fight his firing in front of a neutral arbitrator while the person he harassed was shut out completely — no notice, no statement, no seat at the table. That one-sidedness is what Title IX forbids.
The court limited its own holding to “this particular CNA” — and said the contract could be renegotiated to comply.
A court didn't tell anyone to delete grievable discrimination. It told them to include the victim — and Rutgers' own faculty union is writing exactly that fix into its contract right now. See their proposal ↗
Interactive — weigh the procedure
Build the procedure yourself. The beam keeps score.
Left pan: the accused's procedural rights. Right pan: the complainant's. Title IX's test (34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b)) is that the procedure treats both parties equitably — whatever weight one side gets, the other side gets too. Tap a right below to place it on the scale; tap it again to take it off.
Not yet tested
Place a right on either pan, or load one of the three real-world setups above.
Left pan, accused: empty. Right pan, complainant: empty.
Rights you can give the accused
Rights you can give the complainant
The problem was never that the left pan was too heavy. It's that the right pan was empty. You don't fix that by throwing out the scale — you put weight on the right side.
The fix, in writing
We don't delete the right. We add one paragraph.
In any Title IX-related grievance, both parties get notice when the other files, an equal chance to submit a statement, and equal participation rights. One paragraph. The burden of making that happen is UVM's, where it belongs — it is the University's job to notify the other party and invite their statement.
Suggested contract language
In any grievance arising from or related to a matter covered by Title IX, both parties shall be treated equitably:
- the University shall provide written notice to each party when the other files such a grievance;
- each party shall have an equal opportunity to submit written statements and evidence;
- and both parties shall have equal participation rights at every step of the procedure, including arbitration.
Load the complainant's rights on the scale and watch each line switch on — this paragraph is the balanced scale, written down.
Sources — read them yourself
Primary sources
Plain-English explainers
This isn't a radical demand
Grievable Non-Discrimination is standard practice.
This isn't a radical demand
Grievable Non-Discrimination is standard practice.
This isn't a radical demand
Grievable Non-Discrimination is standard practice.
Peer institutions across the country — most of them UAW locals — already have this protection in their contracts. UVM's position is the outlier, not ours.
HarvardHGSU-UAW
On strike in 2026 over this exact issue — coined #NoCarveOut.
UC system (all campuses)UAW 4811
NYU
UConn
Expedited track lets workers skip the first two grievance steps in discrimination or harassment cases.
UMass Amherst
Temple
Mount Sinai
Weill Cornell
WPI
Hofstra
WellesleyWOAW-UAW
Won the framing: a right you can't enforce isn't a right.
Four pushbacks, four answers
What you'll hear, and what's true.
Four pushbacks, four answers
What you'll hear, and what's true.
The arguments against grievable Non-Discrimination tend to repeat. Here are the four most common, with short answers you can use.
Concrete scenario
A graduate worker is being bullied by their PI.
Concrete scenario
A graduate worker is being bullied by their PI.
Concrete scenario
A graduate worker is being bullied by their PI
A graduate worker is being bullied by their principal investigator. The lab work the PI controls is tied directly to the worker's thesis — leaving the lab means starting research over.
- Step 1Filing a complaint
UVM-only path
Worker files with UVM's office. Alone — no union representation guaranteed.
Union path
Worker can have a union representative with them from the first conversation onward.
- Step 2How long until something happens
UVM-only path
Investigation runs at UVM's discretion. No published timeline; no obligation to keep the worker informed.
Union path
Each grievance step has a fixed timeline written into the contract.
- Step 3But the bullying is tied to the worker's thesis
UVM-only path
UVM's Discipline & Discharge counter says anything academic isn't covered — so an attack on lab access, authorship, or thesis progress slips into a gap.
Union path
The Non-Discrimination article covers the worker as a worker. The grievance process handles the working-conditions side; Title IX still handles the misconduct side.
- Step 4Supportive measures the worker needs to keep going
UVM-only path
Workstation, supervisor, no-contact — all at UVM's sole discretion. Can be denied with no appeal.
Union path
Worker can request these measures themselves through a clear contractual process, with timelines and a written response.
- Step 5If the worker disagrees with the outcome
UVM-only path
There is no neutral appeal. UVM's decision is final.
Union path
The case advances to neutral, third-party arbitration. An outside arbitrator decides whether the contract was violated.
Tell UVM: no carve-out.
The governance page has a Take Action panel that opens a pre-filled email to the Provost, the VP for Graduate Studies, the VP for Faculty Affairs, and the President. Two minutes; pre-written; you can edit before sending.