A student sit-in at Harvard University continued into its fourteenth day yesterday, with about 30 student members of the Progressive Student Labor Movement — a group similar to Princeton's Workers' Rights Organizing Committee — occupying the university's Massachusetts Hall. Protest organizers said they hope to force Harvard officials to accept their demand that the university pay all its employees a "living wage" of at least $10.25 per hour.
Only weeks ago, Harvard administrators declared the issue of an increased minimum wage for employees a "closed" topic. They cited the results of the "Mills report" — released last spring — in which an independent faculty panel of labor experts investigated the wage structures at Harvard and surrounding institutions and recommended that the university implement alternatives to increased pay, including the continued education of workers and assistance with obtaining equivalency degrees.
At a faculty meeting last Friday, however — about a week and a half after the beginning of the sit-in — Harvard president Neil Rudenstine '56 announced his decision to form a committee that would revisit the subject of increased pay.
Joe Wrinn, director of news and public affairs for Harvard, said, "We agree with the principles outlined by the students — dignified wages for all workers. Where we disagree is in the way to do that. We want collective bargaining with unions and don't agree with an arbitrary minimum wage."
Student protesters at Harvard are not alone. About 300 faculty members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences signed a letter in support of the students.
According to a Harvard spokesperson, rallies have been held the past two days outside Massachusetts Hall, with representatives from the City of Cambridge, a national workers rights group called "Acorn" and the AFL-CIO in attendance on Monday.
David Tannenbaum '01, a student organizer of the WROC, said he sees many parallels between the group at Princeton and that at Harvard.
"We are very similar to the movement at Harvard, where students are largely seen to be at the forefront, with the demand that pay appropriately reflect the wealth of the university and the work of the workers," he said. "The things that the administration at Harvard is accusing its students of are the same as here."
There are significant differences in the demands made by Princeton students, however. According to Tannenbaum, one of the most significant is the fact that the Princeton WROC has not asked the University for increased wages, just that wages be "held constant in real terms," or that a cost of living adjustment be included to keep up with inflation.
University economics professor Elizabeth Bogan said that while she was "pleased by the approach taken here at Princeton," she was "uncomfortable with the term 'living wage' " as it is being used at Harvard, mainly because she said it is ambiguous in scope.
"People believe [the term] has emotional appeal — in a nation that is doing well, no one should have to live below a so-called 'living wage,' " she said.
What the term does not account for, according to Bogan, is the fact that not all the workers have the same financial burden; what may not be a living wage for a worker with a family may in fact be sufficient to support a retired, casual worker whose income is supplemented by Social Security benefits.

According to Wrinn, Bogan's concern is not unjustified. He said that the 75 percent of casual workers at Harvard do not use their pay from the university as their primary income.
With no specified end in sight, the Harvard sit-in may last well into that university's reading and exam period.