Blog Post

An interview with Gregory Mantsios, PhD, founding dean of the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Labor and Urban Studies and director of the Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies.

The fall 2024 edition of Trends in Higher Education references a survey indicating that, in general, 67 percent of Americans approve of labor unions. Do labor unions have a role to play in planning in higher education?

To gain additional insight into relationships between higher education institutions and labor unions, we turned to Gregory Mantsios, the founding dean of the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Labor and Urban Studies and director of the Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies.

Mantsios has spent four decades building programs in labor studies and establishing college degree programs for non-traditional students, particularly those from poor and working-class backgrounds. These programs have allowed thousands of adult learners and union members to earn college degrees. In January 2018, he was appointed founding dean of the CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies (SLU). The Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies is an entity within the SLU that offers public forums and programs to encourage greater civic participation and partnering to expand educational opportunities for union members and other adult learners. As director, Mantsios works closely with SLU’s Labor and Community Advisory Board, which meets once a semester and includes representatives from 26 local labor and community organizations.

Mantsios graciously accepted our invitation to address some questions about how relationships between higher education institutions and labor organizations continue to evolve.

SLU’s Labor and Community Advisory Board proactively deliberates about the school’s policies, practices, and strategic planning initiatives. What served as the catalyst for the creation of the board?

A labor advisory board predated the establishment of the school. The leaders on the board were mostly from unions in the public sector, and they wanted to increase opportunities for their rank-and-file members to advance in their careers. The leaders came together because they saw higher education as a vehicle for that advancement, and they wanted to ensure that there would be a college program that would be receptive to the needs of working adult students. These worker-students needed evening schedules, smaller classes, and a strong academic support system.

The unions helped identify students and provided tuition benefit funds through the collective bargaining agreement, as is often done. Unlike traditional workforce development programs, in this case, they wanted a program driven by the needs of workers rather than by the needs of employers. The leaders weren’t particularly interested in matters of curriculum—which initially worried the faculty and administration—but they did insist on a liberal arts education, a strong level of academic support, and an adult worker orientation.

Once a worker education program was firmly in place, union leaders were interested in establishing a school that would prepare the next generation of labor—and subsequently, community leaders. They wanted a school parallel with schools of business, law, journalism, and public health that prepared students for their related professions. The Advisory Board was instrumental in establishing us as a self-standing school within the City University of New York system.

What have been your challenges and opportunities working with the advisory board? What’s next?

It’s always difficult to get busy leaders to devote time to an effort like this. It takes a certain kind of leader to say the education of members is important, and “I’m going to invest my time and energy to ensure my successors will be prepared for leadership.” The challenge is not only to find or convince leaders to invest in education but also to keep them engaged. We do that by proving our value to their members and their organizations. Many of our students graduate and go on to become union staff or leaders.

Given the pro-union trend/sentiment in the country, do you think more higher education institutions may be rethinking how they engage with labor organizations?

I hope so. As employers, higher ed institutions often have confrontational relationships with the unions representing their employees. Universities should think beyond that and think of unions as allies and partners in engaging working adult students in higher education. Unions represent potential students and can provide tuition support. The larger ones have education departments that offer pre-college preparation and then pipelines to their institutions. Unions can also be instrumental in connecting higher education credentials to job opportunities.

Another thing: Unions can also be great advocates for public higher education. We, as educators, can advocate for higher education, but that often comes off as self-serving. When a labor leader makes the case for higher education funding before a legislative body, it takes the case for higher ed to another level. In our experience, labor leaders are very receptive to speaking on behalf of higher education. University/union partnerships make perfect sense.

What’s your best advice for higher education leaders considering initiatives like SLU’s Labor and Community Advisory Board that engage labor organizations in their planning?

Invite someone who represents workers to serve on your board of trustees. Invite a labor leader to be part of the conversation about the future of higher education. The voice of that union leader will amplify the needs of working adult students, regardless of whether they are unionized.

Higher education leaders could also explore collective bargaining agreements, which usually provide for an educational benefit fund. Let’s take advantage of that. It’s an untapped resource that’s a win for the members, the university, and the union.