Rejecting Fear and Division

Dear CIM Faculty Members,

We feel compelled to respond to the letter sent anonymously by some of our colleagues, a letter that is not only inflammatory but also filled with outright distortions of reality. While it’s disappointing that the authors chose to hide behind anonymity, the larger issue is the cruelty and divisiveness woven into their arguments. Let us address some of the most concerning aspects of this letter and its harmful rhetoric.

Anonymous Accusations

The authors claim they remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. This vague and unfounded accusation is not only cowardly but also toxic to any effort of fostering real dialogue. It’s easy to cast aspersions and make claims about others when you refuse to stand behind your words. This undermines the very "cooperation" and "mutual respect" the letter claims to value. By hiding behind anonymity, these individuals sow distrust without taking responsibility for the damage their words might cause. If this is truly about fostering an open dialogue, how can we trust a conversation that begins in the shadows?

Dismissal of Faculty Concerns

Perhaps the most distressing claim in the letter is that the unionization effort is driven by “revenge” and that those in favor are merely trying to “stick it to the administration.” This characterization of our colleagues' efforts is dismissive and dehumanizing. To suggest that those advocating for unionization are motivated solely by personal grievances ignores the very real issues of faculty rights, fair compensation, and professional dignity. Faculty members have raised legitimate concerns about their working conditions, and dismissing them as simply "disgruntled" only deepens the divisions within our institution. These issues deserve to be taken seriously, not reduced to petty infighting.

The Cruel Attack on Our Students

One of the most egregious and frankly cruel accusations is the claim that faculty members have somehow manipulated students into becoming "militant" and using them as "weapons" against the administration. This narrative is both false and deeply insulting to our students' intelligence and agency. Our students are bright, critical thinkers, capable of forming their own opinions about the state of this institution. To imply that they are simply being used by faculty is not only disrespectful to them but also disregards their legitimate concerns. The students who have spoken out have done so out of love for this institution and its and their futures, not out of blind allegiance to any faculty faction. Dismissing their voices as mere puppetry is cruel and beneath the standards of respect and professionalism that we owe them.

Dehumanization

Another deeply troubling aspect of the letter is the implicit—and sometimes explicit—hierarchizing of faculty members, suggesting that some of us are of lesser value than others. The authors refer to certain faculty members, like Robert Vernon, as “true legends,” while simultaneously belittling others by implying they have less “experience, morals, artistic worth, and overall human value.” This suggestion is not just harmful but directly contradicts the values of respect and equality that should guide our relationships as colleagues.

To imply that some faculty are inherently more valuable than others because of titles or tenure is not only elitist but also damaging to the fabric of our institution. Every faculty member, regardless of their position, contributes to the vitality of CIM, and all of us deserve equal respect. Reducing those advocating for unionization to lesser humans, while elevating a select few as "legends," erases the diverse contributions of our community and fosters an unhealthy atmosphere of competition and division. This kind of rhetoric has no place in our academic environment.

Fearmongering and Scapegoating

The authors of the letter engage in repeated fearmongering by predicting the collapse of CIM if the union vote succeeds, portraying the union as a force that will "cripple" the institution. This tactic is nothing more than an attempt to scare faculty into voting against their own best interests. These scare tactics shift the blame for institutional problems—such as low enrollment and financial struggles—onto those advocating for change, rather than addressing the systemic issues that have brought us to this point. Unionization is a pathway to securing fair treatment for all faculty, and the constant fearmongering only serves to stifle meaningful discussion and prevent progress.

Demonizing the Opposition

The letter repeatedly refers to union supporters as “sowers of discord,” painting them as destroyers of the institution. This language is not just divisive; it’s deeply harmful. Instead of fostering dialogue, the authors resort to name-calling and vilification, attempting to isolate and demean colleagues who have dared to speak out. This kind of rhetoric does not lead to cooperation; it only fuels further division and distrust. This vilification also raises serious ethical concerns—our goal should be to strengthen our institution together, not tear each other down.

The Dangers of Elitism in a Faculty Body

Creating a dichotomy between "legends" and "sowers of discord," as the letter does, promotes a vision of our institution where some voices matter more than others. This mindset is dangerous and exclusionary. Institutions thrive when they embrace diverse viewpoints and recognize that excellence comes in many forms. Whether you are a faculty member with decades of experience or relatively new to the institution, you are a valuable part of this community. The attempt to marginalize those advocating for change as less morally grounded or worthy of being heard is elitist and divisive. We must reject this harmful notion and recognize that every faculty member, regardless of status or viewpoint, deserves respect.

In Conclusion

This letter masquerades as a plea for unity and reason, but at its core, it is an attack on those who seek to improve the working conditions at CIM for all of us. It is filled with unfounded accusations, fearmongering, and outright cruelty toward both faculty and students who have had the courage to speak out. Voting in favor of unionization is not an act of revenge or destruction—it is an act of empowerment and protection for faculty members who deserve a voice in how this institution operates.

Moreover, the implicit—and explicit—hierarchizing of faculty members and students is deeply troubling. We must reject the idea that some faculty members are of inherently greater value than others, and we must work together to foster an environment where all voices are heard and respected. Let us remember that faculty members and students alike contribute to the richness of CIM, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and fairness.

We urge you to carefully consider who benefits from the kind of divisiveness and fear this letter promotes, and who stands to gain if we stand united for a better future.