Shifting the Goalposts

At this time last year, Harvard was reeling from the most spectacular example of student protest at the College since the 1969 University Hall anti-war sit-in. Since then, the protesters who occupied Massachusetts Hall have scored an important and necessary victory: workers’ wages have increased significantly. But most of the unions have since put down their picket signs and concluded deals with the University, leaving the liberal student activists searching for a new cause. The heady days of Tent City are gone, and the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) is struggling to redefine its purpose. Its recent activities, including a bake sale and rallies for security guards, have failed to capture the interest of the student body. PSLM is squandering its time, energy and credibility.

PSLM accomplished a great deal during the sit-in, and also during wage negotiations earlier this year. It brought the University to the bargaining table, bolstering the workers’ cause by inciting widespread student protest. A Harvard committee composed of students, faculty, workers and administrators found that low-paid workers’ real wages had dropped over the past two decades and recommended that they be raised above the Cambridge living wage, to $10.85-$11.30 per hour—well above the $10.25 per hour that the Massachusetts Hall protesters initially demanded. The University agreed to renegotiate several contracts, and in February, Harvard’s janitors signed a new contract setting $11.35 per hour as the lowest wage. The University’s museum, parking and security guards followed suit in May; their lowest wage will be $11.15 per hour. PSLM played a central role in these developments and the group should be commended for its achievements.

Despite these accomplishments, PSLM has lost both credibility and visibility as its campaign has dragged on. After the janitors’ union accepted the minimum $11.35 per hour wage, PSLM maintained that the new wages still did not provide for a decent living, even though it claimed otherwise last year, when $10.25—and then $10.68—was its stated goal. Shifting its aims so unapologetically—one PSLM member said, “the numbers we’d been calling for were not sufficient”—significantly eroded student support. PSLM’s charge that Harvard was still acting unreasonably became increasingly hard to maintain after several unions reached deals with the University that dramatically boosted their wages.

At the same time as it was changing its wage targets, PSLM’s tactics became even more coercive and inappropriate. Eight PSLM activists who sat in the middle of Harvard Square and disrupted traffic in the name of higher wages, for instance, made a mockery of true civil disobedience. Searching for new and innovative ways to be provocative, PSLM held an income-redistributing bake sale; white students paid more and minority students paid less. Yet even this effort failed to capture student interest or even promote discussion.

PSLM’s actions in the latter half of this academic year only drew attention away from its victories. Its dedicated members should continue to press for the one remaining major goal that has not been realized—a living wage that increases along with workers’ cost of living and inflation. PSLM must also refine its idea of what constitutes a “living wage;” a wage that was good enough for workers last spring should still be sufficient now. If PSLM focuses its energy on these two goals, it can regain its credibility and support.