2008 Woodie Awards
Thoughts written on napkins
Living wage debate too emotional? Blame administration.
Dan Rosenberg
Issue date: 2/5/07 Section: Opinion
Recently, Living Income for Vanderbilt Employees (LIVE), Vanderbilt's living wage group, has been accused of being poisoned by emotion in its arguments, and of not being reasonable in its message or methods. Often, it seems, LIVE has rightly combated this characterization by explaining that its message and methods are the product of rational indignation, not simple, bleeding heart emotion. It is important to demonstrate that while we who support LIVE are sympathetic to the difficulties of the workers, the adoption of a living wage is not about them. Rather, the debate of a living wage focuses squarely on the administration.
It is the administration who likes to mention frequently their commitment to progress and community. Living wage represents respect for those who share and help shape our community as well as an opportunity to make progress in terms of justice. Now, by not instituting a living wage, the Vanderbilt administration is implying there is something it values more than community and progress, at least in this situation. While it does no good to sit around and hypothesize what the prevailing interest may be, the administration has been unusually secretive about what considerations they have which preclude their adoption of a living wage. Thus we can only guess at the reasons the administration has for shutting the door on community and progress.
Because the university will not allow LIVE to engage in a free and honest exchange of ideas, the living wage movement, in order to sustain itself, has to use methods other than rational arguments. That is to say, by not allowing us to use reasoned and academic arguments, the university is leaving us with only one option: to use arguments couched in emotion and ideology.
So if it seems that the arguments in favor of a living wage are often too emotional, or too driven by ideology, it is because the administration is causing the breakdown of rational, academic arguments. One of the reasons for what many critics have called the most brash moment of the movement, the interruption of the Board of Trust meeting, was so LIVE could formally demand the administration's economic justification for claiming a living wage is not feasible. Because we were never presented with one, the university is effectively saying that LIVE cannot address the fundamental justifications of the university. Thus, because we cannot address the rational and academic models under which wage policy decisions are made, the only common ground with which we can communicate is that of our emotional and ideological concerns.
It is the administration who likes to mention frequently their commitment to progress and community. Living wage represents respect for those who share and help shape our community as well as an opportunity to make progress in terms of justice. Now, by not instituting a living wage, the Vanderbilt administration is implying there is something it values more than community and progress, at least in this situation. While it does no good to sit around and hypothesize what the prevailing interest may be, the administration has been unusually secretive about what considerations they have which preclude their adoption of a living wage. Thus we can only guess at the reasons the administration has for shutting the door on community and progress.
Because the university will not allow LIVE to engage in a free and honest exchange of ideas, the living wage movement, in order to sustain itself, has to use methods other than rational arguments. That is to say, by not allowing us to use reasoned and academic arguments, the university is leaving us with only one option: to use arguments couched in emotion and ideology.
So if it seems that the arguments in favor of a living wage are often too emotional, or too driven by ideology, it is because the administration is causing the breakdown of rational, academic arguments. One of the reasons for what many critics have called the most brash moment of the movement, the interruption of the Board of Trust meeting, was so LIVE could formally demand the administration's economic justification for claiming a living wage is not feasible. Because we were never presented with one, the university is effectively saying that LIVE cannot address the fundamental justifications of the university. Thus, because we cannot address the rational and academic models under which wage policy decisions are made, the only common ground with which we can communicate is that of our emotional and ideological concerns.
Be the first to comment on this story