Searching for an activist group at Harvard is like going into a substandard ice cream shop. There are far too many flavors, they are all unhealthy, and in the end, they do not even taste good. Across the political spectrum—from the Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM) on the left to Harvard Right to Life (HRL) on the right—campus activists hold unrealistic goals and use tactics that are poorly designed and alienating to those who might otherwise support them. Activists would gain wider acceptance and would be far more effective if they were more reasonable and pragmatic.

The downfall of much campus activism, and what makes it so infuriating and alienating to many, is that rather than appealing to rationality and logic, it appeals to emotions and volatility. A perfect example of this was HRL’s series of “Elena” posters last year. These posters began with a fertilized egg which proudly proclaimed to be Elena, excited to be “alive” and “unique;” but they did not provide real information to the readers other than pointing out that the zygote had chromosomes—much like any other cell.

The posters were meant to be provocative and to cause uneasiness to those who are not certain about when life begins, and HRL proclaimed their campaign a success because it made people think about abortion more critically. Yet while their tactic may have made a small group question their beliefs, it alienated the majority of campus who might be sympathetic to a civil discussion about when life really begins. Very few people argue that abortion would be okay if it was actually killing a person; the debate is deeper and more intricate, and HRL decided simply to incite rather than inform or create dialogue.

Another example of absurd and alienating tactics from the opposite end of the spectrum was SLAM’s stunt of taking janitors’ children trick-or-treating at former University President Lawrence H. Summers’ home last Halloween to demand higher wages and increased benefits. Rather than advocating in a professional manner, a possibility given the ongoing bargaining between the janitors union and the University, the group decided that the best way to convince Summers that janitors need higher wages was to invade Summers’ personal life. This is akin to the students from Social Analysis 10 lobbying Professor N. Gregory Mankiw at his home to curve their midterms up. Most would agree that such a move would be completely inappropriate, which is why tactics that aim to make a scene rather than to convey a real argument often backfire. Those who might otherwise believe that workers should receive better benefits thus avoid SLAM due to its alienating strategies.

Some argue that these methods are completely valid, claiming that they “draw attention” to an argument. Yet in doing so they draw more attention to themselves than to the actual issues. Students at Harvard who are passionate enough about an issue to stage a protest would be more effective if they focused their efforts on the intellectual merit of their arguments. Though inducing others to join a cause through rallies and protests may seem the revolutionary, “cool” thing to do—a throwback to the ’60s—to Harvard students and administrators it seems patronizing. Lectures, debates, discussions, informational flyers, and even tabling in a dining hall do far more to legitimate a group and inform others.

Beyond using alienating tactics, many campus activist groups simply have aims that are unreasonable. Many students are driven away to other, more pragmatic causes where they can expect to actually affect change.

SLAM’s “living wage” campaign once again is a prime example. Instead of academically engaging the notion of a living wage and trying to validate it, SLAM ignores the vast literature critical of the notion of a living wage. Instead of talking to Harvard’s famed labor economists about how wage structures work, they denounce capitalists. Instead, they work backwards to determine that the “living wage” of a single adult with two children in Boston is $29.64 per hour, an annual income of $62,589, which is about 135% higher than the median household income in the U.S. Boston on a whole has slightly higher wages—the median was $52,792 per year in the 2000 census for the metropolitan area—but whatever benchmark is used, SLAM’s figure is inflated. While many on campus agree that Harvard ought to value its workers, it is absurd to claim that Harvard must pay far above the market wage. Because of its unwavering commitment to these ridiculous demands, SLAM drives moderate sympathizers away.

Of course, many campus groups do work for noble causes effectively both at Harvard and in the world at large. They focus on inclusion and the spread of information. They organize letter writing campaigns, speak with representatives and leaders, and generally try to spread information and encourage healthy debate. This is the face that activism should take and often does take in this pragmatic world. People often ask why this generation does not protest, and the answer is that they have found more effective ways to induce change.

While dancing around with signs and chanting slogans such as “Harvard you’ve got cash, why do you pay your workers trash” certainly creates a scene and publicity, it does not actually change people’s minds in the end. Most individuals, especially Harvard students and those who consider themselves thoughtful people, would be more easily convinced by an academic, logical, and reasonable approach to change.



Shai D. Bronshtein ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House.