GLO Introduces Article XII: Non-Citizen Rights and Protections
On May 11, GLO brought forward its most expansive proposal of the bargaining cycle: a completely rewritten article designed to protect every non-citizen graduate worker at Brown, not just F-1 and J-1 visa holders. Covering the full range of immigration statuses if covered, this proposal comes at a moment when federal immigration policy has become a daily source of fear for hundreds of GSEs.
Resistance to Grad Testimony
The session opened with friction: Ben interrupted and objected to having Mansi testify a second time with her updates on her discrimination relevant to bargaining, arguing her situation was being handled through other university channels and wasn't relevant to "today's articles." His tone was notably harsh. GLO's team pushed back, noting her experience bears directly on the grievance, discrimination, and fellows provisions under discussion. Ben tried to refuse, in his continued interrupting and harsh tone, until Michael called her up regardless—to the thunderous applause of the room full of 100 members.
Mansi spoke briefly, telling the room she'd followed Brown's earlier advice to reach out to its offices and received no response, and asking, "Is Brown trying to help me or just do damage control?" Co-Chairs asked the audience to raise their hands if they had heard of, faced, or feared discrimination or harassment from superiors or supervisors; the vast majority raised their hands.
The Data: Fear Is the Top Concern
In the theme of discrimination and the need to protect vulnerable populations, GLO's international article proposal was built on a survey of more than 100 non-citizen graduate workers. The results were stark: fear of travel and detention topped the list of concerns at 25.6%, followed by visa applications and renewals (21.6%) and taxes (19.9%). Members described the toll in their own words: fear of being "kicked out of the country," anxiety about visa renewals "both financially and mentally," and uncertainty about whether to even leave the country to visit home, since there's no way to know "if you are going to get checked and wait forever."
Two anonymous testimonies read into the record by GLO Bargaining Committee members underscored what's at stake when there's no formal protection in place: workers navigating visa renewals, financial strain, and fear of enforcement largely on their own, without clear institutional backing.
The Proposal: From "International" to "Non-Citizen"
The most significant shift in the article is definitional. Brown's prior framework, and most peer-institution policies, narrowly cover F-1/J-1 visa holders. GLO's Article XII broadens that to all non-citizen GSEs: lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees, DACA and TPS recipients, undocumented persons, stateless individuals, and non-citizen spouses and dependents. The article explicitly directs that any ambiguity about coverage be resolved in the worker's favor.
Beyond the expanded definition, the article establishes five major pillars:
Resources: guaranteed ISSS appointment turnaround (5 business days standard, 1 day for urgent matters), a dedicated GSE liaison, semesterly immigration attorney Q&As, a "Know Your Rights" guide in English, Spanish, and Mandarin, and individualized Continuity Plans for workers facing immigration-related disruptions
Rights: a 15-business-day deadline for Brown to process work authorization paperwork, a flat ban on using immigration status as leverage or coercion, and the right to have a union representative present in any immigration-related matter
Privacy: strict limits on Brown sharing immigration-related information with government agencies, mandatory notice to the affected worker (and the union, for multi-person requests) if records are sought, and a rule that Brown's Department of Public Safety won't inquire about or act on immigration status
Emergency protections: no entry to workplaces by enforcement officers without a judicial warrant, 24-hour notice to the union and affected workers of any agency action, and University-funded legal counsel in emergency situations
A Visa and Immigration Assistance Fund: direct reimbursement of legal entry and work authorization fees, plus a broader $75,000/year fund covering other immigration-related legal costs, with up to $1,500 per person annually and an extra $7,500 available in emergencies
GLO pointed to peer institutions as proof of concept: Columbia's International Student Hardship Fund disbursed nearly $500,000 in six months, and Harvard has proposed a $225,000-per-year non-citizen worker assistance fund.
Brown's Response: Open, but Cautious
Ben Trachman didn't reject the proposal, but raised a series of process questions rather than committing to specific terms. He noted Brown's existing $30,000 immigration fund has gone underused and said the university would likely move toward "mutual agreement" on increased funding, but pushed back on several specifics:
He asked GLO to define "material risk" in clearer terms, wanting a more black-and-white standard for who qualifies and who makes that call (Notably, this ignores the explicit list of covered immigration statuses which the mutually agreed upon article would define coverage for);
On response-time language, he resisted committing to timelines like "urgent" without first consulting “ISSS” (Reader, he forgot they restructured to OISSS), suggesting the article instead anchor to the already-defined "emergency situation" language that Brown controls;
On privacy provisions, he asked whether GLO would accept carve-outs to keep the university aligned with existing federal disclosure obligations; Co-Chairs clarified GLO's intent isn't to override legal requirements, but to stop Brown from voluntarily disclosing information beyond what the law demands;
On the two-semester appointment extension for immigration-related delays, Ben flagged that some grant funding is tied to specific timelines and asked for clarifying language.
Ben committed to sending further written questions (which the GLO Bargaining Committee are yet to receive) and did not indicate opposition to the article's core framework, which was a notably more open posture than his flat denial of the fellows' recognition request weeks earlier.
What's Next
Both sides are targeting the week of May 25th for the next bargaining session, pending confirmation around the holiday schedule. Brown is expected to return with additional written questions on the non-citizen article, and GLO is pressing for clarity on whether dropped benefits (i.e., retirement, increased childcare, and the first-year fellowship boost) will return to the table, be relegated to a side letter, or refused.
Questions? Reach out: comms@glounion.org
