Over the course of the past two days, hundreds of students, faculty, staff, politicians, clergy and union leaders have participated in the PSLM protest (News, “Sit-In Draws Counter-Protest But No Talks,” April 20). While the counter-protest was short-lived and had low turn-out, Thursday’s day’s major events—a noon rally, a panel of speakers and a vigil—each lasted over an hour and drew large crowds. Your coverage April 20 simply did not discuss the most significant events of the protests, but instead chose to mention only a small action by students who happen to agree with The Crimson’s position that the PSLM sit-in is inappropriate.

Elizabeth F.M. Janiak ’03

April 21, 2001

•

Provide an Alternative

To the editors:

I am disappointed with The Crimson’s refusal to endorse the PSLM sit-in. The tactics that the staff scorns may or may not be frivolous; but when they are used to advertise a well-informed cause, deliver intelligent speeches on why a living wage would not affect employment at Harvard or draw students to pick up leaflets that explain why a living wage will support families, it is stubborn myopia that leads one to see only the fire-eating and not the cause itself.

The real way to evaluate a movement is not to use frivolity as justification for disagreement, but to be able to refute the most persuasive and most intelligent of the living wage campaign’s claims. The Crimson has long acknowledged that the living wage is the moral thing to do.

What would The Crimson advocate instead? A dialogue in a regal room with elegant, cushioned chairs, with the Corporation one side and the dining hall workers on another? It’s idealistic but naive.

I challenge The Crimson to offer a living wage strategy that fits its guidelines—one that is non-coercive, non-disruptive, non-frivolous, but different from the past tactics that have failed. Time’s up.

Michelle Kuo ’03

April 21, 2001

•

Keep Goals Clear

To the editors: