The living wage campaign seems to be making a comeback. Currently, the University imposes its own minimum wage of $10.14 per hour for employees directly employed by the University, although Workers and Students United claim that some workers who should be making this amount, such as individuals working for subcontractors, are in fact paid less. The organization wants the University to pay its workers a “living wage” — about $11.44 per hour, by most calculations. Yet, is this truly the best solution for the University and its employees?

Advocates for a “living wage” base the $11.44 figure on how much two full-time workers would need to make in order to raise a family of four in the city of Charlottesville. The University’s own self-imposed minimum wage is almost $3 above the national minimum wage of $7.25, and increasing it to $11.44 would result in a wage that would be 58 percent higher than this minimum wage. This entry-level salary of $10.14 is already the second highest for universities in Virginia.

Advocates for increasing the minimum wage paid to University employees say that increasing these pay grades could actually lead to lower unemployment. There are a few studies that conclude just that, including a study by David Card and Alan Krueger at the Princeton University. According to Carl Horowitz’s critique of the living wage for the Cato Institute, over “80 studies have demonstrated a link between an increase in the minimum wage and subsequent job loss.” This has the most negative effect on “the workers with the least skills, experience, and education.” This reasoning makes sense — the money to pay workers more has to come from somewhere. Increasing an employee’s wage by $1.30 per hour would actually cost the University more than that amount because of taxes.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that employers also pay that amount in taxes to the government when payroll taxes are deducted from employees’ paychecks. In general, after implementing a minimum wage, employers will either reduce hours, workers, or hire fewer low-skilled workers — or a combination of all three — to keep costs under control. This argument might be unpopular with the general public; after all, it is much easier to talk to someone who has benefited from an increase in his or her wages than it is to talk to someone who was never hired as a result of an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage is great for the employees who still have a job. But for the employees or potential employees that were never hired, the outcome can be devastating.
If the University had to raise its minimum wage, it would most likely also have to raise the wage of those working just above the minimum wage in order to keep higher earners’ paychecks above the starting salary. This money has to come from somewhere. It’s either going to come from reducing services, increasing tuition, or laying off staff — none of which are desirable options.

In addition, the figure for a “living wage” is determined based on a worker who has a family of four. This, however, does not represent every worker. What about single parents? Should we pay them twice as much? $22.88 per hour? What about families with more than two dependents? Why not just pay everyone $100 per hour? You cannot base a person’s salary on how many dependents they have. Not only would this be unfair to single employees without dependents, it would amount to paying people different wages for the doing the same job and changing the system so that it rewards need instead of value.

Advocates for increasing the University’s minimum wage should focus their efforts elsewhere if they want to improve the lives of University employees. Why not try to get student volunteers to offer free baby-sitting to employees or encourage employees to take advantage of the University’s many training and development programs, which not only teach marketable skills, but also can help employees raise their salary once completed? Although increasing the University’s minimum wage might sound great and make us all feel better, it would not be without some unfortunate unintended consequences that must also be considered throughout this debate.

Megan Stiles’ column appears Wednesdays. She can be reached at m.stiles@cavalierdaily.com

The possession and use of marijuana for recreational purposes is illegal in America, but anyone who has spent even a brief time at the University knows that it is a highly visible substance both on Grounds and in the surrounding community. In fact, it has become so prevalent that one occasionally spots a student walking to class in broad daylight with a blunt dangling carelessly from his mouth. Thankfully, the consequences of this legal failure are fairly minimal for those in the University community. Other than the occasional spectacle of a stoned classmate or the minor annoyance of a smoky bathroom, there are few external effects of marijuana usage for University students. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for youths living in America’s drug-ravaged neighbor to the south: Mexico. This fact was brutally illustrated last weekend when ten students, aged 8 to 21, were gunned down on their way to the town of Los Naranjos to pick up federal financial aid. These slayings were not random violence — they were a part of the systematic campaign of terror and destruction that Mexico’s drug cartels have waged on the government, the general populace and one another since a military crackdown on their operations began in late 2006. In the span of a little over three years, at least 6,500 Mexicans have been killed while individuals north of the border have remained blithely unaware that the primary cause of this conflict is not the cartels’ greed and savagery, the corruption in the Mexican police force or the drugs themselves, but rather the tragically misguided policy of the United States government to prohibit the sale and consumption of marijuana. Suggesting that this policy be changed may sound radical to those who do not face daily the destructive effects of marijuana prohibition, but it is an argument that at least deserves to be taken seriously due to its profound importance for the future of both our own nation and that of Mexico.

By legalizing marijuana, the U.S. government would undercut the primary source of funding for the Mexican drug cartels. The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that the sale of marijuana on the U.S. market constitutes 60 percent of the cartels’ annual revenue, most of which goes toward subsidizing the purchase of the guns, explosives and torture devices that the cartels use to conduct the conflict. With marijuana legalized, the cartels would not only be deprived of the funds needed to wage such a bloody war, but they would also have no incentive to continue doing so. The sale of marijuana would finally be out in the open, eliminating the perfect storm of economic factors — high demand and restricted supply — that have served to make marijuana such a profitable product. Individuals could then start legitimate business operations that would cultivate and sell marijuana at reasonable prices, a necessary outcome because of market competition.

This would not, of course, give the green light for all Americans to become marijuana users. Marijuana would have to be regulated and taxed, much like alcohol and tobacco, so that minors could not obtain it, users were aware of the risks and those who willfully partook of it to the detriment of their own health would have to pay the cost. Additionally, it would be necessary for the government to launch a concerted effort similar to the immensely successful anti-tobacco campaign in order to dissuade individuals from using the substance. By no longer refusing to acknowledge marijuana’s presence in United States, however, the government could finally move away from addressing marijuana usage as a legal issue and instead start focusing on it as a matter of public health.

There is no logic behind the fear that such an approach would turn the nation into a land of individuals who would regularly skip work and shirk responsibility just to get high. For decades, the government has attempted to restrict marijuana use through legal measures, yet the drug remains as popular as ever. Although middle and upper class parents may not like to admit it, many of their children are already using marijuana; making it legal would actually shed some light on this aspect of individuals’ lives and it would allow for mature discussion about the hazards of such a lifestyle. Furthermore, marijuana usage is very high in poor communities and the legal response to this has only worsened the situation. By needlessly incarcerating small-time drug users and dealers, American “justice” has merely served to put those individuals into closer contact with real criminals and to worsen their chances for economic success upon their releases. Legalizing marijuana would remedy this problem and would likely lead to a reduction in poverty and violence both in Mexico and in America’s suffering inner-city communities.

Those opposed to marijuana legalization need to explain why they believe that the murder, terror and ruin caused by the drug wars in Mexico and in America’s inner cities are preferable to whatever negative impacts they feel legalization would have. Pretending that U.S. policy has been successful at protecting our nation’s citizens from the ill effects of drugs may be easy and convenient, but it ignores the plight of those outside of our bubble who have been left vulnerable by the fatal flaws of prohibition.

Matt Cameron is a first-year student in the College.

The lights dim in the auditorium. Anticipation builds within the room. The introducer begins to warm up the waiting crowd and is greeted with … silence.

This reaction is not because Prof. Christopher Krentz, the director of the University’s American Sign Language Program, is not giving a good speech or because the audience is not excited for the act. On the contrary, Krentz seems to have given such a wonderful introduction that the crowd is greeting him warmly, only without the customary clapping, because this is a part of the Deaf Culture Lecture Series. The audience here is forgoing applause in favor of upplause, in which individuals greet performers by waving both hands just above their head. As a result, their appreciation can be shown and does not have to be heard.

Not too long ago, however, such traditions would have been fairly unknown at the University. Deaf culture in the way it is thought of generally today — one that communicates primarily through American Sign Language — did not arrive on Grounds until the 1990s. Before then, the only deaf education program at the University had been a failed system that focused on oral education. The modern form of deaf culture took shape here when Krentz came to the University and created the ASL Program.

Since then, the program has enjoyed some success, perhaps in part because of the University’s location, ASL Prof. Gregory Propp said, noting its proximity to Gallaudet University — a federally-chartered school for deaf and hard-of-hearing students — in Washington D.C.

“Charlottesville’s an interesting place,” Propp said. “We’re close to properly the Mecca of deaf culture in the world.”

Being so close to a university that is devoted to educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students gives University students the opportunity to interact with a much larger deaf community than they have ever encountered, as they can attend many events that are conducted entirely in American Sign Language. The ASL program even tries to recreate this experience at the University, not only for hard-of-hearing students, but also for everyone who is learning the language, Propp said.

The Deaf Culture Lecture Series is not the only initiative the department has undertaken to pursue this goal. It hosts, for example, signing suppers and Friday lunches, which are conducted entirely in sign language. These events are not limited to University students, thus fostering interaction with hard-of-hearing members of the Charlottesville community, as well. Representatives from the Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind and students from Blue Ridge Community College also are present.

These events, however, are more than just opportunities to practice sign language, especially for hard-of-hearing students who are not accustomed to a culture of complete communication through sign language, Propp said.

Many of these hearing-impaired students who attended mainstream schools needed to have interpreters, he said, so being in a group where signing is the primary mode of communication is a completely new experience for them.

Such was the case for Jasmine Saleh, co-president of Deafness Education and Awareness For All Students. Born deaf, Saleh learned ASL in middle school but still felt limited in a mainstream high school where there were few other hard-of-hearing students.

“I was confused, lost. But when I entered U.Va. and took ASL, I felt I belonged in the program and I just became fascinated with deaf culture,” Saleh said.

Such stories hint at just how much deaf culture can do to help those students feel more comfortable socially, as they often have difficulty connecting with others in a world that emphasizes spoken languages. Not only do these students face a verbal communication barrier, but their expectations for physical contact are also different from those of hearing individuals.

“Deaf people tend to be more physical than hearing people. When they meet friends, there’s always a hug,” said Rocco Devito an ASL professor and member of the deaf community.

In fact, people who speak ASL as their first language tend to be more observant of small physical exchanges in general, considering the importance of such exchanges to sign language. Facial grammar, for example, is so important in ASL that beginners often miss things because they are looking just at the speaker’s hands and forget to watch that person’s face as well, Devito said.

And these differences in communication could be just one example of a cultural distinction between the deaf and hearing.

“The performance art is totally different from the hearing world, and there are some different social customs,” Saleh said.

In particular, deaf people are more likely to talk as they eat because chewing food does not prevent one from signing in the same way that it can hamper speaking, she said.

Deaf people also may react differently to other people’s conversations, she said. Instead of walking around two people who are talking, deaf individuals more likely will say “excuse me” and walk between them.

Knowing about and respecting these distinctions could help facilitate the interactions between hearing and deaf people. Knowing those differences, Saleh said, helps her in ASL classes and at events on Grounds. Deaf and hearing students encounter each other everyday and — thanks in large part to the growth of the ASL program at the University — both have a chance to learn more about a culture which they may not otherwise encounter.

For deaf and hard-of-hearing students, the ASL program and DEAFS have a dual purpose. They create a feeling of community but also raise awareness about deaf culture so that the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, while close, is not isolated. Thus, the events work to build the community while helping it reach out to those outside it.

As a fourth-year student, I cannot begin to express my frustration toward all those people who continually ask me what I plan to do after I leave this haven called Charlottesville. In fact, frustration is probably an understatement; I think rage is the emotion that more accurately expresses my attitude regarding the topic. Sadly, 3,000 other Wahoos and I will soon embark into that elusive real world, which I regrettably doubt will resemble the one depicted on MTV. Some of us will start intense graduate programs; others will toil away in consulting and research firms for 60 hours a week, and those without solid plans will spend their days job hunting, searching voraciously for an opportunity to resign themselves to the dirty depths of the corporate world.

This mindset is typically commended as ambitious. It is undeniable that students at the University are characteristically Type A. I think students should take a step back, however, and go a bit easier on themselves. There are so many cool jobs out there, ones that aren’t on Monster.com. They do not require grad degrees of any sort, either. Instead of pressuring ourselves to be the next Nobel Laureate, Pulitzer Prize winner or Warren Buffett, we should really look at more diverse opportunities out there, straying from the logical path that we have ingrained in our overachieving heads. I wish I had adopted this attitude in October, as I compulsively wrote cover letters and checked CavLink, or even in my first three years, as I stressed about every exam potentially ruining my “dream” of becoming an i-banker. Now, I realize laboring in a cubicle at 2 a.m. is not quite living the dream; other jobs more aptly fit that ideal. We should all kick back and consider the array of non-traditional options out there, some unusual dream jobs. After all, we are only young once.

One of these dream jobs is a blogger. Just a few years ago, the notion of “blogging” as a career would have been scoffed at, but time has proven the non-believers wrong. In fact, people like Perez Hilton have even become famous for writing snide comments about others on the Internet. Clearly, this is a pretty lucrative field. Additionally, bloggers can set their own schedules and can work from home in their pajamas while watching Comedy Central. Along with choosing their hours, bloggers are their own bosses. As a blogger, you could choose the topics you want to write about and how often you want to write. You may not be rolling in the big bucks but would undoubtedly be having more fun than your counterparts working the nine-to-five shift in a stodgy office building. So get on that keyboard and start writing … You never know what kind of cult following you’ll end up cultivating.

If you like to write but do not have enough creative juices to maintain your own blog, you can be a ghost writer. Other than having a job with an incredibly cool name, you do not need to have an original thought in your head to perform this job well. Instead, you just write alleged autobiographies for uneducated people. As students of the University, we are highly qualified to write memoirs of uneducated, inarticulate celebrities. Seriously, how awesome would it be to get paid a nice paycheck to write Miley Cyrus’ autobiography for a fourth-grade audience?

Another unconventional path to follow post-graduation is to teach some form of sport or recreational activity in an exotic place. This option is perfect for athletes out looking to have fun and earn a paltry enough sum to cover a crumby studio apartment. When I was on Spring Break in Cabo, I regretted having a legitimate job set up in D.C., because I realized I could wake up every morning to a sunny beach and support myself by teaching yoga or windsurfing. I have never windsurfed before, but hey, it can’t be that tough. Other variations include teaching skiing in Colorado, tennis in Florida or yoga at some posh spa in Arizona to a bunch of fitness yuppies. These jobs may not contribute to that idealized résumé but certainly are more fun and exciting than the jobs we typically pursue.
For those who don’t like sports, not to fret — there are fun career choices for you out there. One dream job is to be a celebrity assistant. This job would allow you to make connections with some really cool, powerful people in the entertainment industry, and you would definitely get to attend some baller parties. Also, I bet a University student would be the most qualified person to ever fulfill this role; I doubt P. Diddy had stringent requirements for hiring his full-time umbrella holder. Other perks of this job include the potential to live in a mansion in Beverly Hills, ride in Escalades and be in the background on the covers of tabloids. Not too shabby.

Remember that obligatory Robert Frost poem that we all had to read in middle school, something about taking the road less traveled by? I think we all need to take this to heart. I am not patronizing those without job offers or grad school acceptances in hand when I say that I envy you. You have the chance to go work on a ranch out west or climb the Alps next year. Take advantage of that. I also hope the underclassmen take this to heart and realize that getting a B is not the end of the world. We don’t necessarily need to enter the prototypical, business-suit, cubicle land so entrenched in our heads next year because there are plenty of more fun avenues upon graduation. Matchbox 20 wisely said “I wish the real world, would just stop hassling me,” but there are obviously ways around that, ways we have ignored for too long.

Abby’s column runs biweekly Wednesdays. She can be reached at a.coster@cavalierdaily.com.