Harvard Law Clinical Workers Reach Agreement on Six of 43 Contract Articles After 19 Months

Harvard Law School clinical workers and the University have reached agreement on just six of 43 contract articles after 19 months of bargaining and more than 100 proposals exchanged, leaving the union without a first contract.

Those six agreements cover largely procedural provisions, according to Anne E. Crowe, a member of the Harvard Academic Workers-United Auto Workers law school bargaining committee. They address standard areas such as personnel files, access to information, union rights, and joint committees, Crowe said, meaning the most consequential issues remain unsettled.

During negotiations early Tuesday, union representatives brought forward proposals on academic freedom, discipline and dismissal, layoffs, and non-renewal — some of the most contested areas still on the table. The parties typically meet every two weeks.

Those proposals, along with a separate salaries article still awaiting a response from Harvard, represent the union’s top priorities. The law school unit is part of the broader HAW-UAW, which represents more than 2,600 employees across the University.

Despite renewed movement this week, the sides remain far apart on all major provisions.

Several of the disputes trace back to what was once a single category — “termination and appointment-related matters” — that has since been split into separate articles covering discipline, layoffs, and non-renewal.

The union’s discipline and dismissal proposal would establish clearer protections for clinicians, including limits on non-renewal for employees with presumptively renewable appointments. Its layoffs proposal sets strict conditions under which Harvard could reduce hours or eliminate positions, permitting such actions only in cases of a “demonstrably bona fide” financial emergency.

Crowe said the layoffs provisions are closely tied to academic freedom, arguing that job insecurity can constrain clinicians’ teaching and advocacy. But she added that securing meaningful academic freedom protections has been complicated by what she described as a sharp divide between doctrinal and clinical faculty.

The union first proposed an academic freedom article in October 2024. After receiving no response, it resubmitted an expanded version Tuesday.

The revised proposal goes further than the original, which included four brief sections affirming clinicians’ rights. It now incorporates language aligned with American Bar Association Standard 208, which requires accredited law schools to protect instructors’ First Amendment freedoms, and would require that all disciplinary actions comply with that standard.

"It's been a struggle to help our colleagues on the other side of the table understand the ways in which clinicians need academic freedom to do their job,” Crowe said. “I think sometimes they look at us just as lawyers, so they think in terms of our professional responsibilities rather than our teaching roles — which are in addition to our professional responsibilities.”

In a statement, Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote that the University remains committed to reaching an agreement.

“Harvard University and Harvard Law School are committed to negotiating in good faith with HAW,” Newton wrote.

“While negotiating a contract from scratch often takes longer than building on a previous contract, significant progress is being made towards an agreement that will benefit both students and our clinical instructors,” he added.

Union leaders said the divide between doctrinal and clinical faculty extends beyond pedagogy. Rebecca E. Greening, a senior clinician and lead union organizer, said it creates a hierarchy within the law school.

“I can’t do what they do. That's not my field, that's not what I do. I think the opposite is true — a lot of them could not do what I do, like come and teach a Family Law Clinic,” she said.

“We have different skill sets. We have different approaches to educating, and what I'm trying to uplift is that clinical legal education is as valuable as a doctrinal education,” Greening added.

Compensation remains another sticking point in the negotiations. Harvard has previously proposed a minimum starting salary of $68,000 for clinical fellows; the union countered in February with an $86,500 minimum and a broader framework for raises. The University has yet to respond.

Union leaders said their goal in the talks is not confrontation, but recognition.

“We don’t hate Harvard, we don't hate our jobs,” Crowe said. “We want to be in these jobs serving the communities that we serve and working with the wonderful students that we work with — and what we're asking for is a recognition of that value that we add.”

—Staff writer Taylor M. Bierwerth can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @tmbierwerth.