The Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM) is pursuing a righteous cause in lobbying for higher salaries and better benefits for Tufts' 200 janitors. And though Tufts' finances would justify denying their requests, there are practical solutions that would partially improve the lives of the University's lowest-paid staff.
Before 1994, the University paid its janitors about $12 per hour and provided benefits and tuition reimbursement. The work was then contracted out to a private company, which cut wages, hours, and benefits. In 1997, Tufts hired OneSource to supply workers, and the janitors are now worse off than ever, in an arrangement that saves the University $1 million per year.
There's no question it's unfortunate that janitors earn so little, but activists cannot realign University priorities by pitting moral arguments against fiscal realities. Tufts has one of the lowest endowments of any school of its caliber, and one percent of the operating budget, the amount advocates say it would take to raise the janitors' salaries, is a lot of money. And despite the idealistic rhetoric of its mission statement, Tufts is not a utopia, and sadly the University must think like a business or go out of business.
SLAM should be applauded for educating the campus about the janitors' concerns without resorting to senseless acts of civil disobedience. Last spring, Harvard students lobbied for similar demands, and organized a three-week occupation of Massachusetts Hall, the university's central administration building. SLAM co-founder senior Iris Halpern helped coordinate the Harvard sit-in, and should be commended for realizing that the level of disruption a movement causes is not proportional to what it can achieve.
What Halpern and SLAM are missing, however, are the alternatives to helping the janitors aside from raising their salaries, which is an unlikely possibility under the leadership of University President Larry Bacow, an economist who has implied that he will not evaluate SLAM's claims on moral grounds. To help janitors get better jobs, students could offer them free English classes, for which they would likely receive support from the Leonard Carmichael Society or the student senate. They could also tutor the janitors' children in a Big Brothers/Big Sisters program. The University, meanwhile, should offer generous financial aid to the children and relatives of the janitors who are accepted into Tufts.
If there were any way that Tufts could afford the pay raise, the University should not think twice before ignoring its economic instincts. Paying all workers a living wage would make Tufts a leader among institutions of higher education, as even Harvard, the nation's wealthiest university, has refused to look beyond supply and demand calculations in paying its custodians.
Otherwise, the free classes and other accommodations could have an immediate impact, and janitors, some of whom have no idea what their union is up too, would probably appreciate these steps more than if their student advocates continue to push for goals that are never realized. SLAM's efforts should be commended, but to achieve results, it should take a step back and look at broader possibilities for improvement.
