|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Harvard Warns Living Wage Protesters of Academic Discipline, Police Action |
Current rating: 0 |
by Patrick Healy
(No verified email address) |
28 Apr 2001
|
Harvard administration turns up heat, while students stand pat for action to raise all Harvard workers to a Living Wage.
Published on Saturday, April 28, 2001 in the Boston Globe |
The groundwork was laid years ago, when businessmen and their politician-employees made a conscious decision to deny Americans the basics of life in a modern industrialized society. Kids smart enough to gain admission to college in Germany, a country we supposedly beat in World War II, worried only about passing exams and cranking out essays; we Americans ran up student loans and worked late nights to pay ever-skyrocketing tuition to for-profit universities. When Frenchman and Mexicans and Chinese became ill, they received free medical care; Americans routinely died because they couldn\'t afford medicine. Somehow the businessmen and the politicians pulled off the greatest scam of recorded history: They convinced citizens of the wealthiest, most productive nation on Earth to sign the same exact social contract as those of the poorest backwater dumps.
Nevertheless, we Americans continued to take pride in our political system. As long as you were 18 years of age, had never been convicted of a felony, and could convince your boss to let you out of work before 8 p.m., you could choose between two closely aligned political parties at your local voting booth. We might have the fewest vacation days and the worst retirement system in the world, but we had a voice in determining our future.
That ended, of course, in December 2000. A rogue Supreme Court majority overthrew the Constitution -- which gives control of elections to the states -- and ordered the state of Florida to ignore uncounted votes. For the first time since the British defeat at Yorktown, Americans are led by an unelected, self-appointed strongman. The U.S. now possesses the same exact political system as such Third World countries as Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan and Cuba.
With a minor switch in the players, another rogue Supreme Court 5-4 majority closed the deal on April 24: \"The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seat-belt violation punishable only by a fine,\" formerly liberal Justice David Souter wrote for the majority. \"We hold that it does not.\" The dissent noted that the decision \"has potentially serious consequences for the everyday lives of Americans.\" Well, duh. The constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is now dead. The police can arrest and jail an American citizen for any crime whatsoever -- even a minor traffic offense. \"The practical effect of the ruling is that police officers can exercise \'extremely poor judgment\' and harass citizens for pointless reasons -- and those citizens are without legal redress,\" said Timothy Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute.
Even more than last December\'s subversion of republican democracy, this revolutionary decision has created a de facto police state; the most frequent impact of the power of the state on the life of an individual occurs when flashing lights appear in a rear-view mirror.
With the exception of a few outposts in the West and South, it\'s unlikely that cops will begin applying their new sweeping powers right away. But even the most liberal police departments will be sorely tempted to act as roadside judges and juries. It\'s a funny thing about power: Intimidation is just as effective as handcuffs and nightsticks.
Unless the Supremes reverse their decision -- highly unlikely -- or a constitutional amendment is passed to reverse it -- even more unlikely -- the United States may now have officially left the community of modern democracies. Don\'t be surprised if, not too long from now, you find yourself being shaken down for bribes at police checkpoints or summarily arrested for espousing the wrong political opinion. These are very scary times, and things usually get worse before they get better. (Actually, they rarely get better.)
On the other hand, America\'s new Third World status isn\'t all bad. For one thing, we\'ll get all those tourist euros from free-spending German backpackers. And admit it -- you probably never voted anyway.
Ted Rall, 37, is author of two forthcoming books: a graphic novel, \"2024,\" and a collection of cartoons, \"Search and Destroy: Cartoons by Ted Rall.\" Both books will be published in May.
Copyright 2001 Ted Rall
|
See also:
http://www.livingwagenow.com
|
Comments
|
Arrrgh! Here's Right Story for this Headline |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2001
|
After nine long days, protest-weary officials at Harvard University yesterday threatened academic penalties and the possibility of police action to end a stand-off with 40 students occupying the main administration building in Harvard Yard.
Harvard's president, Neil Rudenstine, met with the protesters for the first time yesterday, gently making clear that he wanted the demonstration to end. Yet, he refused to accede to the students' demand that he and Harvard's governing board adopt a minimum wage of at least $10.25 an hour for all campus employees.
However, Harvard officials said that Rudenstine was prepared to put ''all things on the table'' in direct negotiations with the students, a new sign of flexibility. But first, they said, the students would have to leave the building, and a new study of the ''living wage'' issue would be necessary.
The students, several of whom will graduate in June, blanched at the idea of a another study and said they were reluctant to give up their best bargaining chip: their presence in Massachusetts Hall, where Rudenstine and other top officials have offices.
A top administrator, who asked not to be named, said yesterday that students could face serious consequences for missing classes, exams, and academic deadlines as a result of staying in the building. Harvard rarely instructs faculty on how to treat students, but the official did not foreclose some form of punishment. He also did not rule out calling in police if the protesters did not clear out.
''What is most likely is some kind of academic discipline. The fact that nothing has been said about it is not to say that discipline will not be taken,'' the official said. He characterized the possibility of a police response as unpalatable, recalling how student protesters were injured in 1969 upon being forcibly removed from a building.
Beyond the rhetoric, the wage issue has taken on a strikingly personal dimension for Rudenstine.
He deeply disapproves the kind of rowdy confrontation the Harvard students have waged, and rarely involves himself in direct activism campaigns. But Rudenstine, who is stepping down in just two months after 10 years in the post, is finding his image as an honest broker challenged like never before.
In a statement Thursday night and in comments to the activists yesterday, he signalled new terms of negotiations so long as they quit the building. Until now he has said that Harvard would be guided by a 1999-2000 faculty study of the wage policy. But in his statement, he said future negotiations ''would not be limited'' by that report's findings, which opposed the kind of universal minimum wage the protesters seek.
Rudenstine essentially gave his word that if the protesters left, he would open serious negotiations with them. But while his personal commitment has been good enough for donors who have given $2.6 billion to Harvard on his vision for the university, the students, in the word of one, said, ''C'mon.''
''Because of our history of dialogue with the administration and the president, it's hard to see this as anything but an attempt to get us out of the building,'' said Aaron Bartley, a third-year Harvard law student.
''If we had seen more progress in the past, this would seem like a worthy and good faith promise from him.''
An ally of Bartley's, Paul Lekas, who is not in the building, said this is the first time Rudenstine has involved himself so prominently in the living-wage debate, which has been simmering for more than two years.
''He hasn't done much with us in the past,'' raising students' doubts about his pledges, Lekas said. ''He does have a track record of moral committment, so this is kind of an anamoly for him.''
The students' hand will be strengthened next week, with a series of rallies featuring politicians and labor leaders, including AFL-CIO president John Sweeney.
Despite the demonstrations, Joe Wrinn, a Harvard spokesman, called on the students to act in response to Rudenstine's heightened level of involvement. ''I hope they know the president well enough to know that he means what he says,'' Wrinn said.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company
|
|
