The occupation of Massachusetts Hall by the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) is now entering its third week, and with Reading Period and exams quickly approaching, now is the time for the living wage campaign to take a hard look at its exit strategy.

Despite its inappropriate means, the campaign has achieved many of its original ends—raising awareness for the cause of worker poverty, gaining support from prominent public figures, and making known to the University that its policies are unacceptable to the sensibilities of the student body and the Harvard community. The administration has now expressed an intention to reconsider its previously immutable stance on the issue. With these goals reached, PSLM should conclude the protest, roll up its sleeves and begin the work of participating in efforts with the administration toward implementing a living wage.

University officials have already said that they intend to establish a new committee, nicknamed “Mills Plus” after the committee that met last year headed by Professor of Business Administration D. Quinn Mills, to reopen talks on the issue of a living wage. A decision to work with the committee would be the best possible resolution for the sit-in: it is unrealistic to think that the University would ever commit to a living wage as a simple act of goodwill, and some means of revisiting the Mills report would provide the University with the necessary intellectual cover to change its mind. If they choose to hold out in a quixotic expectation of a University commitment, the protesters would give up their chance to have a seat at the table: University President Neil L. Rudenstine has made it clear that the group will not be allowed to participate in the committee while it continues to occupy Mass. Hall. PSLM should not forgo this opportunity in the hope of an immediate implementation of a living wage.

Time is running out for the protest with respect to the academic calendar, a significant consideration for all those remaining inside the building and those affected by the disturbance the protest has generated. It is also running out with respect to the few remaining days of the Rudenstine administration. PSLM would be better off participating in a committee process now rather than waiting until a change in administration to start the negotiation process over from scratch. This issue will not be resolved before Rudenstine’s departure as president, but it is in PSLM’s interest to set the road map as soon as possible. PSLM should therefore make Mills Plus the focus of its efforts.

Yet the administration’s announcement does not end the issue, at least while the committee’s membership and timetable are not yet fixed. In order to provide the most thorough study of the issue, in contrast to the first Ad Hoc Committee on Employment Policies, the proposed Mills Plus committee should include as official members professors, workers and students. Faculty members from various disciplines will be able to provide expertise on all aspects of the living wage question, including economic, sociological, moral and historical issues. The committee’s investigative work would also be helped by participation by worker representatives; since its recommendation would be non-binding, Harvard would have no reason to fear an undermining of collective bargaining. And students should also be represented to contribute their voice. Though PSLM members should have a share of representation—not as a reward for their unjustified seizure of a University building, but in recognition of their extensive involvement and knowledge—other student representatives should be selected through existing representative bodies such as the Undergraduate Council and the governing boards of the graduate schools. We are concerned at reports that an independent group of students has already inquired about membership on the committee; though we do not doubt these students’ sincerity, there ought to be some greater level of accountability for our representatives.

To date, PSLM has expressed little trust in administration promises of good-faith negotiation. The recommendations of this committee will necessarily be non-binding, as Harvard would never cede its control over wages to an outside group, and the protesters may therefore worry that the committee’s conclusions will be determined in advance or, alternatively, ignored by the administration. The University can help allay this fear by discussing the makeup, agenda and timetable for the committee in advance; though the committee should be assembled within the next few weeks, the schedule of its meetings must accommodate the crucial student voice by waiting to start its work until the fall term begins. A properly constituted and well-designed committee process would offer the hope of fair and impartial deliberations about an issue on which the campus is sorely divided.

The living wage campaigners should capitalize on their opportunity to provide more formal input on a University matter than they have ever done before. They should conclude their protest without a living wage, but with the knowledge that they have made the University listen.