We support a living wage for all of Harvard’s workers. But we cannot condone the recent tactics by which the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) has pursued its ends. The occupation of administrative offices in Massachusetts Hall was inappropriate and will likely prove ineffective, and it has set back the cause of a living wage at Harvard.

As a non-profit institution, Harvard has no obligation to return a surplus to its shareholders. Further, as an institution whose commitment has long extended beyond pure academics to include the betterment of its communities, at home and abroad, Harvard should provide a decent standard of living to its workers. The University’s current wage structure allows individuals to live in poverty despite long hours providing students and professors with essential services, and the expansion of benefits announced last May is no substitute for a living wage. We agree with the city of Cambridge and PSLM that a $10.25 an hour is an appropriate wage for this area, and it is indefensible for Harvard to maintain its policy of hiding its low wages through subcontracting jobs.

We also support a commitment to the Workers’ Rights Consortium (WRC) to monitor the status of Harvard’s direct and subcontracted employees abroad. Harvard must shoulder the responsibility to monitor workplace standards for those outside U.S. borders who work on its behalf. We feel that the monitoring organization with which Harvard is currently affiliated, the Fair Labor Association, does not sufficiently protect these workers.

Yet we firmly oppose the most recent method by which the protestors have sought to achieve their goals. PSLM has diverged from its past practices by engaging in a protest disruptive to University life. The coercive nature of the protest was made clear when administrators were effectively prevented from making use of their offices. A private office of a Corporation member was invaded. And with its calls of “No justice, no quiet,” PSLM has also disrupted the lives of those unlucky students who reside in Massachusetts Hall and are forced to share the building with the protestors. These were not mere side effects of an otherwise innocuous protest—indeed, the very purpose of the sit-in was to leverage possession of Massachusetts Hall into influence over University policy. Differences with the administration over the living wage should be addressed through efforts to convince, not to compel. PSLM is now attempting to make the administration and University community suffer until its demands are met. We cannot condone the use of this sort of coercive engagement on this issue.

PSLM’s previous practices served the campus far better. During last year’s pre-frosh weekend, PSLM tabled outside Byerly Hall, handed out fliers to perspective students, and lined the walls of the admissions office in a way that let pre-frosh and administrators walk past freely. Aside from some noise, the action was generally nondisruptive and was designed to avoid, rather than create, confrontation. The same was true of PSLM’s longstanding efforts to engage in dialogue with University administrators, to inform and mobilize alumni for their cause, to obtain endorsements from more than 100 faculty members and government leaders, to hold rallies with hundreds of students and occasional celebrities and to argue vigorously in the campus and national media. Though we believe PSLM’s ad hominem attacks on administrators and Corporation members to be ultimately counterproductive, they are not an illegitimate means to seek a living wage.

The fact that the administration did not respond to any of these past efforts is truly lamentable. We do not believe that Harvard has a good case against a living wage. Nevertheless, the fact that the University has for the moment decided against a living wage and become less open to PSLM’s concerns does not justify coercive protest against it. These previous moves sparked debate about the living wage in a way the sit-in has not; now, the debate focuses only on PSLM’s error of judgment. With the sit-in, PSLM has hardened the administration’s resolve. The group has squandered its public support and has turned against it many students of whom the vast majority support a living wage.

The protestors have further eroded their moral authority with unreasonable demands and an unseemly self-interest. PSLM cheapened its legitimate requests by its call for the creation of a board—not through administrative appointment, but via unspecified means—to wield policy-making power over the University’s wage structure. The group demanded that the board include workers, union representatives, faculty, members of PSLM, and “an administrator.” It is ludicrous to expect the University to cede permanent control over its wages to an outside board, especially one that enfranchises the members of a voluntary, unelected student group.

Furthermore, the protestors’ request that they face “no academic ... repercussions” for their participation is groundless. Though PSLM stated that its members “are prepared for any repercussions,” their claim to deserve immunity simply because they are “acting to make [Harvard] a better university” brings into question their commitment. Part of the purpose of protest is to indicate depth of feeling and willingness to suffer for the cause; if the consequences of missed classes are more important than raising workers’ wages, then a sit-in was a bad idea from the start. The circus-like atmosphere of the protest, complete with drums and fire-eaters, has given students even less reason to respect the PSLM’s methods.

The sit-in at Massachusetts Hall shows no sign of leading to any positive result. PSLM members should pull out of the building in consideration for the normal functioning of the University and for their fellow students. For its part, the University ought to stop facilitating the protestors’ continued presence. It may make good public relations for deans to offer the protestors extra food, but the residents of Massachusetts and Matthews Halls deserve the University’s protection of their ability to sleep and study—while Harvard should not attempt to drive the protestors out, it has no legitimate reason to prolong their stay.

We do not want to set a precedent for the University to respond to a misconceived protest. However, we also believe that Harvard’s workers deserve a living wage. The University should not accept any quid pro quo for the protestors’ departure. But after they have left, the University should establish and maintain a policy of open dialogue with students and workers to inform its eventual—and we hope rapid—decision to enact a living wage.