To the editors,



Re: “Harvard Will Not Intervene,” oped, May 7.

While I admire the idealism of students who have embarked on a hunger strike to support the demands of Harvard’s security guards, I think the protest is misguided. Basic economics dictates that the more each worker is paid, the fewer workers will be hired. Raising the wages of security guards who already have jobs could shut the door on the poor and unemployed.

Harvard is wealthy, but even the rich face trade-offs, and spending more on security guards could mean spending less on something else that may be of far greater value to the university—and the poor. Furthermore, at a university where so many avenues exist to register protest, embarking on a hunger strike is rash and self-destructive, and encouraging others to do so is cynical and manipulative.

If this is radicalism, it is radicalism of the elite sort. Effectively, the students are protesting so that a private security force can get paid more to protect the private property of a private corporation that does not pay taxes to support local public services.

Surely a better course of action would be to campaign for Harvard to support better policing in the streets around campus, where there has been an outbreak of muggings and robberies this year? Finally, I am disappointed in the security guards for allowing students to starve themselves. If the security guards are committed to protecting students, they should discourage students from endangering their health over a wage dispute.



JOEL POLLACK

Cambridge, Mass.

May 8, 2007



Joel Pollack is a Harvard Law School student of the class of 2009.