Hazard to Dream: Living Wage Debate in STL

For those of you out of the loop: The student worker alliance (SWA) of Washington University has recently seized the office of admissions and is staging a fierce protest in support of a living wage for subcontracted university workers who maintain the landscaping, cook our food, clean our rooms, and provide countless other services for which we spoiled children are far less grateful than we should be. We live in the lap of luxury, and yet the human dignity of these workers has been insulted by their lowly wages, not even enough with which to support a family. Many have it worse, but this is no reason to excuse the ills of a micro-society which we have the power to change. My response to a column in the student newspaper Student Life, linked in the headline:

This is my response (culled directly from an email):

Basically, while I heartily applaud any work with the Vincent de Paul society or any of those types of organizations, they simply treat the wounds rather than heal the disease.  And that’s where I have a problem.  When I went to Bolivia, we sat around asking ourselves why we were doing this, how 9 young adults could possibly hope to make any real difference in one of the poorest nations in the world.  I won’t deny that Gregg may have seen similar levels of poverty in his work in the depressed areas of St. Louis—that’s what’s most fundamentally wrong with our nation.  We are inherently and horrendously unequal.  Consider the following quote, in direct reply to Gregg’s article, from someone listed as Robert, who I can just about swear is a friend of mine and one of the most socially conscious and genuine people I know:

“As a matter of fact I know of more than one family with a member working at WU that lives in poverty. Maybe if people were paid a living wage you wouldn't see so many families in desperate poverty (in the richest country in the history of the world.) Maybe a living wage would serve to prevent families with small children from going on the dole. It's better to build a wall to keep children from the edge of the cliff than it is to build a hospital at the bottom of the cliff. A few years ago, I worked as a social worker in the metropolitan area. The police in East St. Louis ordered us to stay out of the city without a police escort. "It's too dangerous," they told us. There are children in there! Some suffer from malnutrition and other health problems because their fathers are unable to provide for them. What kind of a country would allow that, AND spend 13 billion dollars a year on pet supplies?! “

The hospital/wall bit is what’s key for me in this whole debate.  Gregg is merely building the hospital, but doing nothing to stop the people from falling off the cliff.  While people do need to work in the metaphorical hospitals as well, it is more important to find the cause and stop the problem there.  And that’s what this all comes down to.  And it’s the same conclusion the Bolivian group reached—that the experience would change US more than anything else, and that it would, hopefully, propel us to make fundamental changes in the systems of inequality and injustice in this world.  And the only way we can do that, successfully and with no true harm to others, is through the methods advocated by SWA—non-violent civil disobedience.  These methods cause dialogue and they cannot be ignored, but no actual damage to existing structures is actually done, and yet real change can be accomplished.  If we did not have people willing to fight peacefully in these means, women would lack the right to vote (and, effectively, to hold jobs as well presumably), and the injustices against minority races, particularly African Americans, would persist in a full-fledged fashion.  Issues like a living wage are today’s real civil rights issues.  This is a chance to save our living brothers and provide them with a real means to raise themselves up without us simply giving them handouts—we are paying them for the work they accomplish and giving them a means of supporting their families—and yet it is not a gift—but something earned and something that should have existed in the first place.  Consider—we can help someone out of suffering and injustice merely by rewarding them in the means they should have been for some time now—to no expense to anyone or anything but the university’s endowment.  And it sets a precedent that this may effect broader and broader areas of life until more people are covered and the nation may perhaps dismantle some of its inherent injustice.  Wash U may be in the early stages of this process (in America) and that’s a beautiful thing, because it shows we actually do still have caring, compassionate students willing to wage war against the greatest epidemic in the world—the epidemic of poverty.

The fact that these SWA members are willing to set aside their own personal comforts and needs—possibly delaying graduation, denying themselves food and sleep, and constantly campaigning for this cause to enhance their numbers (even if these swollen numbers are perhaps not AS dedicated and informed) is truly commendable and awe inspiring.  Beware—for in the words of the sage adventurer TE Lawrence (of Arabia, largely responsible for the freedom--but not the current mess--of the Arab nations): "The dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible."  This type of deed is the zenith of what mankind can and should be.  Yes they are probably sheltered and living off their parents money, but sometimes it takes people like that to initiate the sacrifice.  I can guarantee you; however, that the members of SWA that I am friends with are NOT per se people that are well off and sheltered and that yes, they may be making these real sacrifices and affect themselves directly.  But I find that truly beautiful and courageous—they recognize that the 4-year university plan is only 1 path to destinations that have roads innumerable leading to them.  The fact that they are willing to flaunt societal norms and perhaps carve their own roads for the betterment of other people is AMAZING.  It’s not comfortable, and it makes us fidgety and overwhelmed just to think about it, but it’s people like that that will make a real difference—THINK DIFFERENT!  Life is not comfortable for the people they are fighting for (or for the people Gregg is helping)—so what’s wrong about the soldiers in the fight being uncomfortable as well—Gregg can go and make his soup or give money to buy a table, but at the end of the day he doesn’t truly experience the lives of the people he’s helping and he goes back to his comfortable bed on campus.  SWA comes closer to the reality—they are causing discomfort to themselves and achieving something closer to a real empathy with the people they are fighting for, and sometimes, it takes that much to make a difference.

I contend that Gregg’s work amounts more to self gratification that he’s “doing a good deed” than actual help—I’m not discounting the actual goodness and selfless motivations behind his actions, but what I am saying is, if we really want to make a difference, it can’t be accomplished solely through helping the less fortunate by doling out monetary gifts and cooking them dinner.  Sometimes, a little discomfort to ourselves in order to help out our brethren and force the system to actually alter is a good thing.  Again, this is what the SWA is trying to do. 

I’m not even going to address the economics of the issue, because it’s not entirely substantiated and depends upon certain assumptions that cannot be made.  What matters here is the passion and the fact that we know that SWA will be causing direct good in the lives of the people they are fighting for.  As for Gregg’s assertion that efforts could be better spent elsewhere, as in the areas of East St. Louis, here’s my response to that.  First, again, the people I know in SWA, who are, many, at an officer level ALSO run things like stone soup and other programs that treat the wounds of the poor as well—these are student organizations akin to Vincent de Paul society work, and often work hand in hand.  These are kids that DO go to soup kitchens and DO help out elsewhere in the city.  SWA is their arm for direct university change with regards to the workers that over the past two years have suffered a grievous number of wrongs against their persons.  The American Dream is to be able to come to this country and make a better life for oneself, and right now, they are being denied from this dream.  Some will argue that these workers should fight and claw their way to the top and achieve their success on their own. I say--drive and motivation are wonderful things, but men can be driven down beyond the point of getting up without a true helping hand. Why should society be structured this way? These are hard working men and women--should not they be paid fairly for their labour, and then, if they are strong enough, perhaps find it within themselves to then rise to a "higher" position in life?

The university is a place where these students can attack the root cause and make a difference—in the greater city, it’s much much more difficult to grasp a tangible foothold—as such, the university is the proper place for action, where they can be reasonably certain of success.  They still help out in the greater city, but whereas they are in a position to fight for right at Wash U, they are not so positioned in the greater area of St. Louis.  That takes an organization of a much larger scale.  We make the real fundamental change where we can and then hope and encourage others to follow our example.

So that’s what I have to say about that, in full.  I hope I’ve been clear, and I hope I’ve shown you a different angle to this debate.  Clearly, this is something I feel incredibly strongly about, much more so than the other issues we’ve been discussing where I feel that I still have much to learn and that there can be a variety of different answers.  It’s not a comfortable issue and goes against a lot of fundamental assumptions that the majority of Wash U makes about the traditional paths of hard academic work in hs, college, and then on to prestigious grad schools and places of work.  But that’s hardly all there is to life, and we truly have a debt to our fellow human brothers to help them out and fight against the injustices of the world.  The fact that 1) students are able to recognize the need for a “wall on the cliff” as well as a “hospital at the bottom” and 2) there fierce desire to truly fight for real social change is more than admirable and, while there tactics perhaps are sometimes rude and inconvenient, no one has actually been hurt, and I doubt anything has actually been damaged.  This is peaceful—and yet painful—but it is a noble and good end, and a proper one fought by real impassioned students, and led by those who have a true perception of the wrongs and realities of this world.  The world is an uncomfortable and ugly place at times, and fighting to give someone else’s live more sunshine is what it truly means to be human--this then, is seeing the light of God in other people and recognising their true dignity and worth.

We must open our eyes to reality, open our hands in charity, and open our arms in welcome to world humanity.  The "bubble" must be burst.



Postscript:

I will admit two weaknesses to my argument before closing. First, I am not physically in StL at the moment, and so my perceptions are based on inherently biased hearsay from both sides of this issue and I cannot truly evaluate the behaviour of the SWA. Recent moves such as the declaration of a hunger strike are perhaps going too far, especially after the university offered several concessions that may have made a real difference and seem close to full objectives. There's the weak rationalist/realist within me speaking up. Second, some (all?) of this may be contrary to the paper sitting on my desktop at the moment courtesy of another Rob--To Hell With Good Intentions. It clearly is a dangerous move to exert our wills and perceptions into another's life, and this may cause peripheral harms that the SWA has not considered. Civil rights are a very complex issue that morph with different realities in upbringing and core values, and caution should be used. Direct communication with the workers--even if they cannot directly protest and cry out with their voices themselves--is a necessary for the leaders of the SWA.