A Simplistic View

To the editors:

Miriam Asnes (Opinion, “A Liberation Story?”, April 16), compares the plight of the Palestinians to that of the biblical Israelites enslaved to the Egyptians, who, in her analogy, represent modern Israel.

Equating a modern political situation to an event in the Bible is deeply problematic; the narratives often lack the complexity and nuance that exist in the world we know. For Asnes, the current conflict can be summed up in two straightforward identities: Israelis = biblical Egyptians = bad, while Palestinians = biblical Israelites = good. This sort of rhetoric is offensive both to reality and to the reader’s intelligence.

Asnes cites recent uses of force against Palestinians, in particular the demolition by Israeli forces of 30 homes in a Palestinian refugee camp. Asnes mentions that Palestinian snipers were using these locations to shoot and kill Israeli citizens, but she never explains why Israel’s response makes it the oppressor. She avoids this because admitting that Palestinians are attacking Israelis would complicate her story; it would reveal the fallaciousness of her analogy.

Knowing, though, that there is Palestinian brutality, aggression and terrorism against Israelis, she searches for a place to fit them into her story: these parallel the plagues that God brings upon the Egyptians. In her narrative, these “reprehensible actions” have a moral: “there is an imbalance of power that Israel has the ability to remedy.” Does she mean that the Israeli government must provide its Palestinian attackers with better arms? May one only defend oneself against an equally strong enemy? Because it has better military capabilities, Asnes implies, Israel is necessarily in the moral wrong. While the more powerful side in a conflict has greater ability to oppress the weaker side, logic—and reality—permit the opposite. So while it is relevant to note Israel’s superior military capacities, the imbalance doesn’t reveal which side is acting morally.

For Asnes, powerlessness, victimhood and the moral high ground are elements of a single package, while power, oppression and moral corruption are inextricably joined as well. She complains that in Israel today, the Jews are “not in the familiar position of victim”; she is actually mourning the fact that the Jews in Israel have power.

This is indeed unfamiliar to the Jewish nation, having spent 2000 years in a position of statelessness. But Jews’ finally having power to defend themselves is nothing to mourn. Israel faces the challenge of using military power to protect its citizens in a moral way, considering the realities of a complex world. We must judge Israel’s decisions on this basis, and not dismiss its claims simply because it is the more powerful party in this particular conflict.

Jonathan M. Gribetz ’02

April 17, 2001

The writer is president of Harvard Students for Israel.

Unions, not Wages

To the editors:

The Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) claims the living wage movement is an effort to restore dignity to Harvard’s workers (News, “PSLM Occupies Mass. Hall,” April 18). Speaking from a modest, working-class background, I find their campaign inexcusably condescending. I envision these living wage protesters generously descending from their ivory towers to fight a battle for the common, uneducated worker. This benevolent gesture is patronizing and demoralizing, and if I were among the ranks of Harvard’s workers, I would feel humiliated.

If PSLM really wants to ennoble Harvard’s workers, how about giving them some agency in fighting injustice? PSLM makes one crucial point: the fact that Harvard outsources to non-union labor is not only exploitative but also cowardly. Make unionization the primary focus of the campaign, and forget about trying to impose an arbitrary wage standard.

Once Harvard workers are unionized, they will be empowered to stand up for themselves and fight for the wages and benefits they deserve. If they decide to strike, then let us students rally behind them and support them with all our resources until the administration meets their demands. That is the only way we can express our appreciation for the services these workers provide without simultaneously robbing them of their dignity.

Jack E. Caughran ’03

April 20, 2001

•

Harvard Won’t Listen

To the editors:

In “The PSLM Must Go” (Editorial, April 20), the staff’s proposed alternative to PSLM’s ongoing occupation of Mass. Hall is for the University to “establish and maintain a policy of open dialogue.” You fail to note that dialogue with the administration has been actively pursued by the Living Wage campaign since its inception. Time and time again it has failed.

The administration will enact change only when it is publicly—and repeatedly—humiliated. Bad press is anathema to its image. The Crimson has regretfully chosen to focus on PSLM protesters and to mischaracterize them as a “circus-like” group of noisy, disruptive students.

In effect, the staff has touted the noble values of liberal education—of rational deliberation, of open dialogue, of mutual respect—in defense of an administration that has undermined those values in its refusal to engage with students and workers—let alone enact a living wage.

Adam Christian ’01

April 20, 2001

•

Unequal Coverage

To the editors:

Over the course of the past two days, hundreds of students, faculty, staff, politicians, clergy and union leaders have participated in the PSLM protest (News, “Sit-In Draws Counter-Protest But No Talks,” April 20). While the counter-protest was short-lived and had low turn-out, Thursday’s day’s major events—a noon rally, a panel of speakers and a vigil—each lasted over an hour and drew large crowds. Your coverage April 20 simply did not discuss the most significant events of the protests, but instead chose to mention only a small action by students who happen to agree with The Crimson’s position that the PSLM sit-in is inappropriate.

Elizabeth F.M. Janiak ’03

April 21, 2001

•

Provide an Alternative

To the editors:

I am disappointed with The Crimson’s refusal to endorse the PSLM sit-in. The tactics that the staff scorns may or may not be frivolous; but when they are used to advertise a well-informed cause, deliver intelligent speeches on why a living wage would not affect employment at Harvard or draw students to pick up leaflets that explain why a living wage will support families, it is stubborn myopia that leads one to see only the fire-eating and not the cause itself.

The real way to evaluate a movement is not to use frivolity as justification for disagreement, but to be able to refute the most persuasive and most intelligent of the living wage campaign’s claims. The Crimson has long acknowledged that the living wage is the moral thing to do.

What would The Crimson advocate instead? A dialogue in a regal room with elegant, cushioned chairs, with the Corporation one side and the dining hall workers on another? It’s idealistic but naive.

I challenge The Crimson to offer a living wage strategy that fits its guidelines—one that is non-coercive, non-disruptive, non-frivolous, but different from the past tactics that have failed. Time’s up.

Michelle Kuo ’03

April 21, 2001

•

Keep Goals Clear

To the editors:

As students who support the sit-in, we were dismayed when we walked by Mass. Hall Saturday and discovered that it had become co-opted by a group passing out Socialist newspapers and protesting against globalization and corporate greed.

The PSLM is seriously damaging its credibility by allowing its own protest to be merged with the disparate concerns of leftist activists. It is alienating members of the Harvard community concerned about unfairly low wages but unready to embrace anti-globalization rants.

The protesters, both inside and outside of Mass. Hall, seem convinced the issues of transnational corporate greed and Harvard’s failure to institute a living wage go hand-in-hand. We can see the connections they are trying to make. Low wages are caused by powerful institutions paying workers only as much as they have to. Since Harvard can find workers who will accept $7 an hour, it sees no need to supply a living wage.

But if the sit-in is to succeed, it must be focused on the issue at hand, Harvard’s injustice. It can’t be blurred by addressing injustice worldwide, over which even the Corporation has no control.

The chances of the administration paying serious attention to this sit-in would be far greater if the PSLM kept its mind on the living wage in our community and saved other battles for another day.

Andrew P. Winerman ’04

Tariq M. Yasin ’04

April 21, 2001