More Support for a Living Wage

Over the past three days, the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) protesters in Massachusetts Hall have achieved a significant degree of student and outside support. While we still hold with our position that coercive protest on this issue, such as the Mass. Hall takeover, is unjustified and inappropriate, we recognize the non-coercive successes of PSLM that have occurred amidst the protest and we hope they will continue.

The most noticeable support for the protesters has come from several “big names,” including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy ’54-’56, who made an appearance at Mass. Hall and shook hands with some of the protesters. Many executives of the AFL-CIO, including its president John Sweeney, have sent letters supporting the sit-in. Some public figures have supported the cause of a living wage without specifically mentioning the protest; Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), sent a letter endorsing the campaign for a living wage, and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, though he declined to “tell Harvard what to do,” appeared and spoke for a living wage for all workers. But not all the supporters have been famous: attendance at the daily rallies by students, Harvard workers and local unions increased markedly over the course of the weekend, and a number of House Masters and faculty members have begun plans to petition the central administration in favor of the cause. Additionally, PSLM’s efforts to convince alumni not to donate to Harvard until a living wage is granted continue apace.

We have always supported the living wage campaign’s attempts at expanding awareness, and we are glad that the sit-in has been accompanied by such efforts. Shows of support for the living wage, whether or not they specifically endorse PSLM’s tactics, further the living wage campaign’s goals of raising public understanding of the issue. Harvard has continued to claim publicly that only 400 of those who work on its behalf are paid less than a living wage, showing a sensitivity to its public image. The more effective living wage supporters become at showing the holes in Harvard’s story and making the true case for a living wage, the better the chance their efforts will succeed.

Yet PSLM must remember that the ultimate audience for these statements is not public opinion, but the Harvard administration. We are glad that PSLM has made efforts to make its protests less disruptive to the student body, especially with regard to reducing nighttime noise in consideration of the residents of Mass. Hall. But the protesters have still disrupted administrators’ access to their offices, and we are very concerned by reports of increasing harassment of secretaries and other support staff working within the building—Harvard workers in whose interest PSLM has campaigned. Such harassment is more likely to harden the administration’s resolve than to weaken it; indeed, the central administration has continued its refusal to negotiate while the protesters are still within the building.

We hope that the shows of support by those outside PSLM will help the administration separate the cause of the living wage from the tactics chosen in this protest. The University is no doubt concerned with setting an uncomfortable precedent by giving in to coercive measures. However, we sincerely hope that non-disruptive efforts and increased public awareness will eventually sway the administration to do right by its workers.

DISSENT: The Staff Should Join the Supporters

Over the weekend, the cause of the Progressive Student Labor Movement gained critical support, as has been recognized by the staff opinion. The staff, however, continues to deny the efficacy of the sit-in for achieving the living wage, and the reasonable nature of the protest as a response to administration stonewalling. We continue to feel that the sit-in is justified and can serve to further the staff position in favor of a living wage being granted to all Harvard workers.

The living wage sit-in was made necessary by the continued refusal and delay by the administration to move beyond mere recommendations it made in last May’s report. The administration has not fully implemented its own recommended changes and has since refused to reconsider the issue of a living wage. The staff recognizes the validity of this goal but not the means taken. This is a crucial time in this campaign, and the staff should not refuse its support to the protesters sitting in at Massachusetts Hall and to those who have joined their cause.

—Adam I. Arenson ’02, Laura K. Cobb ’02, Edward B. Colby ’02, Susanna M. Flug ’02, Joshua J. Forman ’02,

Zachary R. Heineman ’03, Jordana R. Lewis ’02,

Kate L. Rakoczy ’04 and Tova A. Serkin ’02