After the Sit-In

For three weeks in late April and early May, the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) was the first topic of conversation on campus. “What do you think of the sit-in?” became a common question before class and during meals, and the controversy provoked heated exchanges both in dining halls and on the pages of campus publications. The Massachusetts Hall sit-in and the attendant media campaign catapulted PSLM and the living wage into the national media spotlight—and got more students and faculty talking about the status of Harvard’s workers than ever before.

We have long supported the cause of a living wage. Harvard’s mission is not solely academic in nature, and the University should provide its workers with wages that allow them to live decently in their community. None of Harvard’s workers should live in poverty. Public awareness and condemnation of its wage policies is not something that image-conscious Harvard can easily tolerate, and by focusing attention on the issue, PSLM was able to force Harvard to reconsider what had been described as a closed issue.

Yet it was unfortunate that PSLM chose to diverge from its past tactics when it initiated the sit-in. Unlike the PSLM “occupation” of Byerly Hall last spring, which sought to raise awareness of the living wage without interfering with registration for Pre-Frosh Weekend, this action was a blatant disruption of University life. The protesters sought to compel Harvard to agree to PSLM’s demands through their control of administrative offices—a tactic that was inappropriate for the cause.

A more fruitful strategy, however, was PSLM’s effective advocacy and solicitation of support outside the building. The protests drew the attention of Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy ’54-’56 (D-Mass.), former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, all of whom spoke outside Mass. Hall. Other members of Congress and of the community spoke out in favor of the living wage. The sustained media effort brought the campaign to the attention of the national press and made it an inescapable issue on campus.

It would therefore be foolish not to credit the protest with its eventual result—the appointment of a new committee to consider Harvard’s labor policies. For months —indeed, until the final days of the sit-in—Harvard had given the impression that the issue was closed. The Ad Hoc Committee on Employment Policies had released a report in May of 2000 that recommended against a wage floor for Harvard’s employees, suggesting instead an expansion of health insurance, training opportunities and other job-related benefits. The committee’s research, though substantial, failed to determine whether the benefits it proposed would afford Harvard’s workers a decent standard of living. Despite the welcome expansion of benefits, the committee’s recommendations were insufficient to achieve this goal. The creation of a new body that will not be bound by the old committee’s conclusions is a strong step in the right direction.

The composition of the committee, chaired by Professor of Economics Lawrence Katz, is another positive outcome of the sit-in. By including student representatives on the committee as full members, Harvard recognized that students have an important role to play in issues relating to the University as a whole. Harvard seldom grants students any formal role in its decision-making, and we hope that this committee will be one of many future opportunities for students to contribute to University policies. Harvard was also wise to select the student representatives through the undergraduate and graduate governing bodies, as well as to heed calls for worker and union representation on the committee—which, after all, has as its mission the improvement of workers’ welfare.

The decision by President Neil L. Rudenstine to create the Katz Committee was therefore very significant. Yet Rudenstine will have left office by the time the committee is slated to release its report. President-elect Lawrence H. Summers has so far kept quiet regarding the living wage issue; we urge him to consider seriously the recommendations of the new committee.

In the end, the Katz Committee offers the best opportunity supporters of a living wage have ever had to press their case with the University. The broad cross-section of professors who will be on the committee and the presence of student and union representatives promises that the committee will consider seriously the proposal for a living wage. Nevertheless, all members of the committee should approach their duties with an open mind. Those who sympathize with PSLM should put aside the rhetoric that demonizes the administration and try to work for the best possible outcome for Harvard’s workers. By the same token, those who do not believe in wage floors must not dismiss the idea of a living wage out of hand.

The enormous outpouring of community support during the sit-in should be seen as a mandate to assist the workers and their unions in their fights for better wages and working conditions. Indeed, the most important consequence of the sit-in may not be the formation of the new committee, but an increased consciousness on the part of students of the need to make sure their school acts in a responsible way towards its workers.