Those who attended the living wage rally Wednesday afternoon may have had a variety of opinions, but most would have come away with the same feeling: This is really fun. In addition to the party-like atmosphere (complete with free cookies), the rally featured inflammatory, populist rhetoric that was not relevant to the group's demands. The intent was to generate support through sensationalism. What it did was mischaracterize the living wage movement as radical, making it more difficult for them to achieve their somewhat moderate demands and distracting student attention from other worthy causes.
The overblown rhetoric of the living wage protestors made the rally seem like a far more radical event than it really was. History Prof. Julian Bond's speech freely associated the Campaign and the sit-in participants with protestors ranging from early Christians being fed to lions for their beliefs to Socrates preferring to drink hemlock rather than betray Athens. One protestor held a sign calling, one must assume, the University's administration "imperialist pigs."While the campaign itself cannot be blamed for the actions of all of those present at the rally, the organizers did nothing to discourage such radicalism. If anything, their direct action tactics encouraged those present to view the campaign as a radical leftist movement.
This perceived radicalism only gives ammunition to critics. Of course, any movement for workers' interests in this country is invariably met with charges of communism and a lack of patriotism. The latter accusation is ridiculous, although that did not stop a counter-protest, which was smaller than the living wage group but was nonetheless visible, from making such a claim. While the living wage protestors chanted in front of Madison Hall, the "market wage" protestors could be heard singing "I'm Proud to be an American" -- as if the free market were the essence of our country's values. However, the counter-protestors were able to accuse the living wage group of Marxism without looking entirely ridiculous. In fact, while one protestor held up a poster with a tally chart asking people's "favorite economist" -- the options being Karl Marx or Adam Smith -- one living wage member actually walked up and placed his vote for Marx. All that this action accomplished was to affirm in the minds of critics that the living wage is a Marxist goal. One does not win over institutions like the University's administration through claiming to be radical.
What the campaign clearly meant to accomplish by putting on such a display of workers' solidarity and radicalism was to appeal to the leftist ideal that George Orwell described when he wrote: "When I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy...I do not have to ask myself which side I am on." Many students understand what Orwell meant, which is undoubtedly what the Living Wage Campaign meant to use to raise support for their movement. However, this sort of emotion is not applicable to the Living Wage Campaign. The campaign is merely misrepresenting its goals in order to garner popularity.
It should be clear that standing up for workers' rights in the face of brutal oppression is a noble cause. The Living Wage Campaign is not doing any such thing, despite what they encourage students to think. Everyone knows the debate, even if almost no one completely understands it. It will suffice to say that the benefits of a $10.72 wage are questionable at best. Regardless of the merits of the living wage, much of the energies put into this effort could have been better applied towards reforms that have wider, more concrete benefits.
The most obvious misrepresentation is the idea of singing "workers' songs" outside of Madison Hall. The Living Wage Campaign wants to make its campaign seem like a sort of idealized proletariat rising. The workers they are fighting for are the very real men and women that we see every day -- not some abstracted Latin American workers singing "El pueblo, unido, jamas sera vencido." They are worth fighting for, but their cause should not be misrepresented. Instead of making their aims seem more radical and drastic, the campaign should be emphasizing the fact that they are really asking for a relatively small concession.
The truth is that the Living Wage Campaign is an easy way for students to "play revolutionaries." They have chosen a cause to rally behind, regardless of its merits, and have given it undue significance when in reality it was chosen because of its convenience. One voice at the rally was overheard excitedly proclaiming that "we're finally doing something college-y." Direct action and protests are not laudable in and of themselves, but are as worthwhile as the cause for which they are undertaken. There are hundreds of issues that demand our generation's attention. Certainly we can find one more worthy of serious action than the living wage.
Daniel Colbert's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 5 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
