Federal prosecutors this month unsealed a sweeping indictment against eight individuals connected to the University of Michigan, alleging a coordinated campaign of intimidation against university officials over the school’s ties to Israel.
The details go well beyond protest.
According to the indictment, the defendants are accused of vandalizing homes, throwing jars filled with chemical substances through windows, and issuing threats designed to pressure university leaders into divesting from Israeli-linked interests. Prosecutors say the campaign targeted not only university leadership, but also their families.
In one exchange cited in the indictment, two defendants allegedly discussed putting the children of university officials “on my hit list” and spoke openly about wanting to “kill,” “torment,” and “terrorize” their targets.
Those are allegations, and the defendants are entitled to due process.
Yet even as those allegations move through the courts, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers is reportedly helping fund the legal defense of some of the accused.
At the University of Michigan, thousands of graduate employees, lecturers, staff, and healthcare workers are represented by AFT-affiliated locals. Many have no idea their union ecosystem is now entangled in the defense of individuals accused of threatening public officials and their children.
That raises a broader question.
What responsibility do unions have to the workers whose dues sustain them?
Union leaders often operate with broad discretion, while rank-and-file workers are left with little visibility into where their money goes or what positions are being taken in their name.
For decades, labor unions have argued that collective representation gives workers a stronger voice in the workplace. That principle depends on trust that union leadership is acting in members’ interests and advancing workplace priorities.
But increasingly, union leaders are asking members to underwrite causes far removed from wages, benefits, and workplace protections and, in cases like this, legal defenses tied to deeply troubling allegations.
Workers deserve clear answers when union resources, or affiliated fundraising operations, are used to support legal defenses tied to allegations this serious.
This isn’t about the politics of the Middle East. Americans hold deeply different views on the war in Gaza, and those debates will continue.
This is about something simpler.
Violence, intimidation, and threats against families cannot become normalized as tools of political advocacy. And workers should never be kept in the dark when their organizations appear to excuse or subsidize that behavior.
The labor movement has long claimed to stand for dignity and justice.
Its leaders should be willing to explain how that principle squares with this.
And if workers disagree, they should know they have the right to say no and the freedom to walk away.