There’s a battle raging for the hearts and minds of Georgetown students. It’s been brewing for years, endlessly covered in campus newspapers, and has finally reached the bursting point. It is, of course, the latest iteration of the frustrated disaster that is the living wage debate on campus. Now, both the Living Wage Coalition and the University administration are slowing down the process towards a viable living wage proposal. It’s time to remember that both groups have reasonable goals and both deserve a reasonable compromise.
Events began brewing in the weeks before spring break, when the LWC decided to demand a vote on their Living Wage proposal, which has been before the Advisory Committee on Business Practices for almost six weeks. If there was no vote, they would begin a hunger strike. The University, after reading a Living Wage e-mail to all students and hearing the LWC’s plans, apparently sped up their own work to present a counter-proposal at the meeting and put up a new website for the committee. At Tuesday’s meeting, the committee was predictably deadlocked.
A public relations fight ensued. The LWC is occupying Red Square and leading at least 20 members in a hunger strike, and has sent representatives to media outlets around campus. Not to be outdone, the administration has taken the initiative to send four senior officials to the Voice and the Hoya, a rare move the administration only makes during campus crises.
The LWC is, of course, right. They have a moral imperative to fight for a living wage. They are right when they say that the most recent proposal by Senior Vice President Spiros Dimolitsas is not acceptable because it does not commit to a wage that will keep workers above the poverty level.
Unfortunately, the University is, in a stricter sense, also right. There’s no way for the University to absorb the cost of immediately implementing a living wage-which, according to their numbers, would be more than $1.8 million-without large program cuts throughout the University’s complex bureaucracy.
But the University is in the wrong, too. The administration has never acted quickly on living wage issues unless the LWC or, before that organization’s existence, the Georgetown Solidarity Committee, has taken action. Even now, its priorities are confused as it considers purchasing a 55-acre retreat center and spends money on a new boathouse. We need to protect our vital priorities, and fair pay for our workers must be one of them; retreats are not.
Most galling, though, is the University’s now-instinctive employment of public relations chicanery to hide its motivations, probably due to the bad press after Dimolitsas said workers weren’t part of the University community in a moment of stress last fall. The University refuses to comment directly on the idea of a living wage, employs delaying tactics and attempts to hide what happened at Tuesday’s committee meeting (The Voice was unable to speak with any University official familiar with the committee’s activities concerning wages). While it’s clear that at least some members of the administration are committed to helping the workers, the tactics they’re employing only make it easier for the Living Wage to caricature them as unfeeling misers.
The LWC shouldn’t be spared its share of criticism, either. While their direct action has been the motivating factor behind much of the University’s forward movement, they need to move beyond pointing out the problem and towards helping to solve it. Their proposal for a living wage is comprehensive until it comes time to find a way to implement it. Merely cutting executive salaries cannot solve this problem, although that can and should be a part of the solution. A hunger strike will not help the University find more money.
This morning, the Advisory Committee on Businesses Practices will meet in an attempt to find a compromise and end the hunger strike. Hopefully, the University will commit honestly to a living wage-actually involving that key phrase-and hopefully, the Living Wage Coalition will work constructively with the Administration to find solutions, allowing the University the time it needs. Both groups are working towards the same end, and they need to act like it. Otherwise, students will end up in the hospital, the committee will dither on, and in a few more months another protest, another press release and another frustration will confront the campus.
