THE LIVING Wage Campaign has done it's best to become insignificant at the University this fall. Compared to several large rallies last spring, their first rally this year, held this past Friday at the Rotunda, showed substantially lower turnout, and their shouts garnered little more than a few passing comments in the media the next day.This is a fortunate occurrence, as the campaign, often in the media spotlight, consistently drags the University through the mud with their disrespect shown towards both the University and the University administration.
One such comment briefly aired on WVIR NBC Channel 29 on Friday from one of the campaign's leaders, Benjamin Van Dyne. Van Dyne said, "And we think that if we raise all that money, but don't take into consideration the people who will be sweeping the floors and cleaning the bathrooms, then our priorities are skewed."
The quote highlights an extremely flawed assumption on the part of the Living Wage Campaign: That the University, unless it meets their demand of a $10.72 living wage, is not taking such workers into consideration. It implicitly follows that the only way for the Living Wage Campaign to achieve this desired end is through the protest means they have selected.
It is indeed telling that the Living Wage Campaign selected last Friday to hold their rally, as that was the official kick-off of the public phase of the Capital Campaign, the University's efforts to raise $3 billion for a wide variety of purposes. These include scholarships, faculty support, new facilities and programs, research endowments, health care, and other goals that will greatly increase the quality of education at the University. The kick-off featured the return of numerous distinguished alumni and, most importantly, a Board of Visitors meeting to be held in the Rotunda Friday afternoon.
The tents pitched outside Madison Hall last spring. The 17 student protestors arrested for trespassing inside the same building. The "10.72" chalked illegally on the bricks of Pavilion V. The shouts at the Board of Visitors as they walk down the Lawn from the Rotunda to Cabell Hall. The editorials that harshly condemned President Casteen for his alleged lack of efforts to help the University's workers.
Van Dyne himself contributed to this pathetic onslaught of the President. In a July 6 guest editorial to The Cavalier Daily, Van Dyne opens by saying, "University President John T. Casteen, III is upset about the Living Wage Campaign, and thinks he can lie his way out of the issue" and continues, "But a university president undermines his own position as an educator when his example teaches that deception and slander are okay as long as they serve your self-interest."
I have had the privilege of meeting with President Casteen and other University administrators to discuss these very issues. Not only was President Casteen quite willing to meet with us, but he was also highly educated on the issue, regularly conducting studies to make sure the University wages are in line with adjustments in inflation. More importantly, he perpetually showed a very real concern for making sure the best course of action was the one ultimately taken.
Indeed, there areother, more effective ways to help out the University's workers. One example is the earned income tax credit, which the Employment Policies Institute, a think-tank dedicated to wage research, finds better suited in assisting low-income families than artificial wage floors. By providing added income after taxes, the EITC isn't reduced by taxes nor will it raise low-income earners to the point where they would be unable to receive other needed benefits. But you won't find out about it from a Living Wage Campaign irrationally dedicated to one -- and only one -- "solution."
Regardless of your view on the "living wage," the tactics shown time and time again from their campaign ought to be condemned as disrespectful. But such is the line of attack taken by the Living Wage Campaign, one relying more on emotional rhetoric than a true concern for the workers themselves.
Daniel Lautzenheiser is the Chair of the Economics Study Group, and a third year in the College.
Read More
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
ELJAZZAR: Expand institutional knowledge for student empowerment
By Farah Eljazzar | 2 days agoThe University must take steps to provide its students with the means to easily navigate the resources, offices and structures of the institution.
