FOOTSTEPS to freedom are often walked in chains. The arrest of the 17 student protestors occupying Madison Hall was quite a spectacle -- police dragged tired students out in shackles. One officer shook up his pepper spray to let the swelling crowds know he meant business. For the awe-struck audience, it seemed as though the movement had suffered defeat. The activists were en route to jail, chants for social justice hummed softly in the background, and business in Madison Hall resumed Monday morning, as usual. It would be short-sighted, however, to view the movement as a failure. Rather, let us observe the campaign without succumbing to ideological bickering. If we can do this, we might excise a few lessons on the politics of protest.
Say what you will about the Living Wage campaign, but you must stand in awe of their organization. Throughout the entire ordeal, campaign organizers balanced media relations, mobilization and the gamesmanship of protest politics. This is more than I can say for the University administration. Once this campaign fades -- regardless of the outcome -- its legacy will probably attend to the activists' inspiring dedication amid University administrators' gross incompetence.
If we examine both sides' discourse with the media, for instance, we can easily discern a group of professionals and a group of disjointed amateurs. But they're not who you might think. When asked about the University denying food to the protestors, spokesperson Carol Wood said, "Allowing food may have encouraged them to stay longer and there is a need to get the building back into normal operation." What exactly was Wood insinuating? Did they intend to starve the students out? That hardly reflects the sentiment Wood imparted in another statement: "We support what they are doing as a position and learning experience."
Meanwhile, campaign organizer Abby Bellows said, "The University is being irresponsible in its treatment of workers... forcing some of them to rely on food stamps and second jobs." Contrast that with the senseless bleating of University officials. While Wood issues meaningless communiqués (She reminded us that the students occupying Madison Hall were "passionate about their cause," just in case their sit-in and subsequent imprisonment didn't indicate such, campaign organizers continue to engage the public in substantive debate. The comparisons don't end there.
The Living Wage Campaign saturates its Web site with information that could satisfy even the most inquisitive visitor, including frequently asked questions, economic support for a living wage, links to media coverage of the campaign and a report detailing their origins of their cause. Contrast that with University President John T. Casteen III's statement: "Our schedules are fair, they do not constitute what you have represented to the public as poverty wages." Pithy, you must admit. The striking difference between the campaign and the administration lies in their willingness to offer ideas rather than rhetoric.
The campaign approaches the public with abundant information and sensible argument coupled with non-violent direct action. However, the administration exhibits punitive antagonism and bewildering behavior vacillating between condescending press releases, insincere attempts at negotiation and choking off food supplies. Whether we realize it or not, the Living Wage Campaign has, in many ways, already won.
Even if the $10.72 wage is never implemented, the University community has a stunning exemplar of successful student activism. Those who harp on specific details are missing the fact that The Living Wage Campaign accomplished several notable achievements. First, they have launched a media offensive reminiscent of national political action groups. Second, they have occupied the undivided attention of the administration and the public for nearly a week. Third, their carefully calculated action has maintained both the integrity and solidarity of the movement, while portraying University administrators as villains. These are not minor achievements.
Every progressive student organization on Grounds ought to pay close attention to the events of this week. The Living Wage Campaign proves that the difference between successful activism and negligible liberal whining is a matter of organization. Errant flyering and always-inspiring chalking relinquish control of the dissemination of information, thus condemning their message to the same fate of the chalked words themselves -- to be stepped over on our way to class. Activism, like any other political action, must be considered as such. To accomplish any political feat, activists must maintain control of their movement within the framework they are given. As the poetic Donald Rumsfeld put it, "You go to war with the army you have." Put simply, there is an enormous gulf between expressing an opinion and direct action.
Earlier this year, I wrote to complain about the University's lack of constructive student activism. The Living Wage Campaign brilliantly proved me wrong. Perhaps now, with the lessons of the campaign, students' innumerable progressive causes can transform our sporadic altruism to enduring and effective protest.
Dan Keyserling is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
