With characteristic sensationalism, PSLM points out that some of Harvard’s money managers earn annual salaries of over $10 million. But this argument misses the point. While it would be wonderful if Harvard could pay its financial gurus less, doing so wouldn’t give them an adequate incentive to render their services here—services that are vital to Harvard’s academic aims in a way that the labors of individual less-skilled workers are not.

Equally unconvincing is PSLM’s insistence that $10 million is a small fraction of Harvard’s annual budget. While this sum may seem insignificant when viewed as a portion of the University’s overall expenditures, the absolute value of $10 million is nevertheless enormous—especially when one considers the academic work these dollars support. Are we really to think that Harvard serves society best by devoting $10 million to create marginal improvements for a couple thousand employees instead of, say, using that money to fund cancer research?

The answer should be obvious. But people can’t hear themselves think over the hysterical shriek of PSLM protesters long enough to arrive at it. And it doesn’t help that the PSLM articulates the living wage issue in such biased terms that dissenters are in risk of being branded lunatics, Nazis or—worst of all—Republicans. Even the term “living wage” is so loaded that it eliminates any hope for sane discussion. Who could be against giving people a “living wage”? Does that mean PSLM’s opponents advocate a “death wage” instead? They must be pretty rotten people, those anti-PSLM folks: they don’t even want to let the little guys at Harvard keep on living!

People who have thought through the living wage issue should know better. But then again, one questions whether the protesters have considered all sides of the issue. It would be nice if they reconsidered the merits of their case next time they decide to subject Harvard to a highly publicized embarrassment.

Jason L. Steorts ’03 is a philosophy concentrator in Cabot House.