By Brett Flehinger

April 30 was the turning point in the living wage campaign at Harvard. The endorsement of a New York Times columnist followed by the public support of the AFL-CIO leadership weakened the University administration and left the protesters stronger than ever. The question now arises: Can the students’ advantage produce a solution in the best interests of everyone—workers, President Neil L. Rudenstine, administrators, student activists, the faculty, students and the University as a whole?

On Wednesday the Boston Globe outlined a plan to bring the protest to a swift conclusion while allowing everyone at Harvard to benefit. Harvard would agree to raise to $10.25 per hour the wages of the approximately 400 workers it directly employs, with the implicit goal of extending the same wage to all other workers on campus. In return, protesters would leave Massachusetts Hall and allow the University to begin negotiating wage agreements for both union and non-union workers.

Here’s why such an approach makes sense for everyone involved.

Workers: For those directly employed by the University the gains will be immediate—a needed raise in pay. While non-union workers are equally deserving of a raise, future pay increases can be made retroactive to the end of the sit-in and guaranteed through the creation of a broadly representative committee on wages and work conditions.

Student Protesters: The sit-in will have achieved demonstrable results the moment Harvard pays its workers the additional wages. While giving raises to directly employed workers does not solve the entire problem, Harvard will move toward a universal living wage, setting a precedent for the future. Having raised wages for Harvard’s own employees, University administrators would find it very difficult to refuse raises to outsourced workers. For the students sitting in, the issue is even more pressing. Reading period can provide a crucial opportunity for students to make up missed work and pass their classes without bringing an educational crisis on the University. Delaying a settlement will increase the difficulty facing the students without changing the result.

The Administration: In exchange for raising the pay of directly-hired employees, the University will gain time to negotiate agreements with other workers, maintaining a degree of control it could lose if the protest goes further. On Wednesday Harvard dining hall workers voted to authorize a strike, suggesting that the situation will become trickier the longer the administration holds out. Furthermore, having held firm for more than two weeks, the administration can negotiate and remain secure in the knowledge that it is not likely to see future sit-ins, from current protesters or others. Having gained a significant change in wage structure, living wage activists would lose a great deal of support if they reoccupied University property. Nor will another group occupy University property lightly. The lesson of the current sit-in is that only campaigns that have organized carefully, arranged for faculty support and are able to mobilize national and international attention stand any chance at all.

President Rudenstine: The choices are stark: being remembered as the man who raised billions of dollars but paid out little to his workers and left an unresolved mess for his successor, or being remembered for working to the end of his tenure and resolving, peacefully, a thorny issue. Rudenstine need only look at the example of former President Nathan M. Pusey, who left office during the anti-Vietnam War protests, for a negative example.