Students show up at morning meeting unannounced, demand support for living wage
Bearing pictures of Vanderbilt employees, 25 students marched silently into a Board of Trustees student life committee meeting Thursday morning.
After contacting the administration and receiving no response, members of the student group Living Income for Vanderbilt Employees decided to barge into the meeting unannounced to make their voices heard.
In a single-file line they positioned themselves in the front of the room, behind the forum speakers that continued to present. At 11:45 a.m., senior Diane Faires interjected.
"Sorry to interrupt, but we have an urgent vision for Vanderbilt that we would like to present to you at this time," she said.
"We are students of Vanderbilt University and members of Living Income for Vanderbilt Employees. We come to you today to propose that Vanderbilt University implement a living wage for all of its employees."
While the administration acknowledged their concerns although they were not on the agenda, Chancellor Gordon Gee refused to sign the petition, but said he would discuss their requests in a private meeting Friday.
The play-by-play
Faires said LIVE had addressed the administration and Young Alumni Trustee forums "countless times" to respond to their concerns, but had only received "vague talking points" in return.
"After four years of asking politely for true dialogue and access to information, we are here today to demand it," she said.
She called for the board and administration to review their proposal, which outlines their calculation of a living wage, as well as to present a fully transparent cost analysis, estimating the cost for the university to implement a living wage, by Dec. 7.
The students concluded their speech by demanding Chancellor Gordon Gee, Chairwoman Martha Ingram and an additional board representative sign a statement of commitment at that moment saying that they would address their concerns.
They paused and waited for Gee to respond.
"Thank you for coming," Gee said. "The notion of us not having a constructive dialogue is a misrepresentation, but I will accept your concerns. The notion of coming in and making a presentation is very helpful, but coming in and making a presentation threateningly is not constructive."
Gee said that with employee contracts negotiations between the Vanderbilt employee union and the university currently underway, it would not be "in the spirit of negotiations" to discuss the issue in that sort of format.
"I, for one, will not sign anything with this kind of environment," Gee said.
In response, LIVE member Tim Bowles, a senior, said the format of discussion was "forced upon us."
"We have attended four consecutive Young Alumni Trustee forums, but no progress has been made," Bowles said.
"We want numbers and we want that in the form of a cost analysis," Bowles said. "We're not asking for the implementation of a living wage, we are asking to take a step in that direction. What we are asking for is not out of balance. Coming in here and interrupting this meeting is unfortunate, but it has been forced upon us."
Bowles mentioned a personal meeting he had with Gee but he said the meetings were not productive because of the "same vague rhetoric."
After speaking briefly with Vice Chancellor David Williams, Gee told the students he would arrange to meet with them along with two other board members the following afternoon to discuss their petition.
In response, Bowles said "any answer other than yes will be interpreted as no." He said LIVE intended to use one of two press releases: the first stating the administration agreed to cost analysis and is in support of the idea of living wage, or the second stating that the administration refused to do a cost analysis or support the idea of living wage.
The chancellor said he did not want to continue discussion with "a gun to our head," but said he wanted to have an open dialogue in a private meeting with LIVE members.
He said a meeting will allow him to also "make the points I want to make."
"If you say what I have said is vague, I think it's been very clear," Gee said. "So I want to be heard also."
Bowles reiterated that he would release the second press release stating that the administration is not interested in discussing fair wages for Vanderbilt employees.
Gee, banging his hands on the table, encouraged the students to release the statement. He said, "Please do. First of all, that is not the way you deal with an institution. That is not addressing the issue. So if you are going to do that, then please do it, and you have our blessing in doing that and we will still meet tomorrow."
The meeting ended with Board of Trust member Darryl Berger telling the students that they had been heard, and now it was time to from the student groups who were on the meeting agenda, because if they kept talking it would be unfair to other students.
After the Meeting
After the living wage students filed out of the Board Trustees room, there was not further discussion of the living wage issue, and the forum continued as planned.
LIVE members congregated in the Studio Arts Building and discussed their next move.
"I am really pleased our voices were heard in the meeting and appreciate the fact that the board listened to what we had to say," senior Ellen McSweeney said. "But I think it's really disappointing that the university can't even commit publicly to a cost analysis."
McSweeney said that the cost analysis is the first step towards living wage discussions. She said that if Gee does not sign a commitment to a cost analysis, she does not see how the private meeting will be productive.
"Our goal is to express to the public just how unwilling the administration is to publicly address these issues," she said. "They want to have a private meeting with us, but we want to tell the entire Vanderbilt community.
LIVE contacted Vice Chancellor Williams last Friday to set up a time to present their proposal to the Board of Trustees.
Williams responded to their e-mail the next day saying he would contact the executive committee.
"You can understand that the agenda for the Board meeting is pretty full however I will ask the Board if they can grant your request," Williams said in an e-mail to senior Stacy Tolos. "I need to inform you that there are not any student organizations that are presenting to the Board during this meeting; however, some might be involved in committee activities."
In the e-mail, Williams said he would respond by Tuesday or Wednesday. However, after LIVE members did not receive a response, they made the discussion to attend the meeting unannounced.
Williams confirmed this e-mail correspondence and said he had planned to schedule a meeting with LIVE and trustees, but had not contacted them.
Meeting attendees respond
After the committee adjourned, meeting attendees discussed among themselves the LIVE surprise presentation. Berger said he thinks the issue of fair wages is very important.
"I have been to many student forums so I've heard a great deal about it," Berger said. "It is clearly a very important and critical topic, and I'm glad that students have the intellectual, social energy to engage in moving this topic forward."
President of SGA Boone Lancaster said he understands the frustrations of LIVE, however, he said that interrupting the meeting was not the best way to get their voices heard.
"I understand they have had frustrations with the issue, but I'm not sure if this curried a lot of favor with the board members while interrupting the on-going meeting," he said "I also felt for the students we had presenting on Vanderbilt Visions, because it limited the discussions on another important aspect going on at Vanderbilt."
Background
Before interrupting the Board of Trust committee meeting, members of LIVE assembled in the Studio Arts Building and rehearsed their presentation.
LIVE had been preparing to address the Board of Trustees for two weeks with workshops for members educating them on non-violent resistance.
"We are trying to go about this in a professional way, but still in a way that dramatizes the gravity of this issue, of the crisis we have with the low wages of Vanderbilt employees," Bowles said.
"This is the first step in a series of last resorts," Bowles said. "We will fit this into our strategy based on their reaction."
Allison Malone and Ally Smith co-authored this story.
I maintain that you wouldn't
I maintain that you wouldn't find this "silly" if it really affected you, and in my opinion it does affect us all. We are all members of the Vanderbilt community, and the problems of any of that community's members are problems for all of us. Vanderbilt has set a high standard, and in this case it is failing to meet that standard.
It may be fine for you, as an individual, to wait around until you come up with a better idea, but it's not fine for the people who are being paid so poorly. It affects them right now.
You call LIVE childish and immature, but were you as mature and wise as you seem to think you are, you'd realize that it's not all right to allow things to continue as they are while we wait for someone to get back to us about it.
"Let me ask you this--what
"Let me ask you this--what will YOU do to address it?"
Good question. It won't involving storming the Bastille de Student Center and calling for the head of King Gee and the noble gentlemen of the Board of Trust if they refuse to sign my piece of paper.
If I had a solution I would be out there trying to get it into action and if I come up with one I'll be sure to let you know. But for now, the best I can do is criticize - and in this case, a silly action like this is definitely worthy of criticism.
To any administrator who is reading this though, I hope you'll realize that there are some legitimate issues and there is some merit to the arguments being advanced by LIVE, and that you should look past their tactics. It may be hard to do so. But don't shoot the messenger when the message is fairly decent, just because the messenger doesn't know how to effectively communicate well.
No, I don't understand what
No, I don't understand what you're saying. The civil rights movement required a lot of work on the local level to succeed at the national level--the fact that LIVE is working especially for Vanderbilt employees doesn't make LIVE any less important or less comparable to other struggles for justice and rights.
As far as your points,
(a) The reason that they kept the number of students involved so low was that you can't really move a larger group in and out of a meeting hall very easily. If you've been around any of their events, you'd know that there are a lot more people involved in the group than the few who participated in this.
(b) The administration's approval of wage increases would not make them look weak. It would make them look like maybe they actually cared about their employees and maybe they actually do stand for all the nice things they like to say Vanderbilt stands for.
My issue...
My issue with LIVE's little performance was that A) it was a pretty small group (around 20 students) and thus not particularly impressive and B) the most likely result of this kind of action is extreme resistance - now, if the administration raises the wage (which I definitely acknowledge that they need to do), they look like they're giving in. It makes them look weak - I feel like this move could damage the LIVE movement.
Also, I have to agree with Michael's point that the civil rights movement aren't really comparable here - while the employees of Vanderbilt need more money so that they can, um, afford food, its not a civil rights issue. Comparing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's fight for equality and justice to this particular fight kind of demeans his work - since his was on such a huge scale. Ours, meanwhile, is just concerned with Vanderbilt. If LIVE was pushing for raising the minimum wage nationally (which I rather think needs to happen) then it would be more comparable. Does that make sense? At any rate, I agree with LIVE's views, I just think they went about it the wrong way; I'm worried they'll just have pissed off the administration with this invasion, rather than making them listen.
response
First of all, what we're talking about here is a whole lot more than "a quarter to a dollar" in wage increases. But the amount is not important-- you're totally failing to recognize or acknowledge our point that these economic struggles are a part of the civil rights struggle.
It doesn't matter if you're free to vote if you can't afford to take time off from your two or three jobs to do it.
It doesn't matter if you're free to "order a cup of coffee in the local diner" if you're barely making enough to just get by.
It doesn't matter if you're free from physical lynching if your masters lynch you financially.
YOU are the one doing the "real disservice" here-- you are refusing to admit a plain and simple fact. You're jumping on your fellow students and calling them immature for having the guts to actually do something about this. You admit that it's an important issue. Let me ask you this--what will YOU do to address it?
It's a far cry from
It's a far cry from "economic justice" (what is this, Marxist fantasy land?)- which essentially, if you look past the rhetoric, means getting a quarter to a dollar more in a wage- and not having the right to vote, the right to order a cup of coffee at the local diner, not being able to drink out of the same fountain, not being lynched, etc.
It really does a disservice to try to compare the two. I know student liberals of today want to try to compare themselves to their parents' generation and make themselves feel empowered by holding demonstrations and rude interruptions, and I'm sure the next course of action will be to use the same tactics the civil rights movement did for much more legitimate purposes.
I am not saying this isn't a legitimate issue but it doesn't in anyway rise to the level of the need for civil disobedience.
wait . . . about those Civil Rights leaders
I wonder why a previous poster believes a campaign demanding economic JUSTICE is one that is incomparable with any sort of civil RIGHTS campaign. Do both not seek dignified and human treatment of our fellow? Do both not seek to deconstruct and reassemble the systems and structures that purposefully prevent equality?
Did Martin Luther King, Jr., said civil rights leader, not champion "it is a crime to live in this rich nation and receive starvation wages"? Oh, and wait, did Martin Luther not die in Memphis marching with sanitation workers who were seeking economic justice? In King's last book, "Where We Are Going," did he not blatantly support, argue and commend a national guaranteed-income policy? (“I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.”)
I am disgusted with the aforementioned poster's ignorance on the topic and please ask him to refrain from describing the civil rights movements with convenient and erroneous definitions.
Economic justice and equality are not simply vague abstractions, but inalienable rights of every human in the world. When we all come to recognize this, the goals of the Civil Rights movement (and infinite others) have finally been realized.
michael, i don't understand
michael,
i don't understand why you consider pressuring the administration through actions such as rallies, as LIVE has done in the past, as going through the proper channels. it's a pressure tactic just like the one used today at the board of trust meeting. however, you are correct in that this kind of direct action is the only thing in the past that has provoked a substantial response on the part of the university administration, especially in the case of the base wage increase that you mention.
it's the same struggle
It is not intellectually dishonest to compare this to civil rights, because this is a part of that struggle. As one of the speakers at LIVE's teach-in said, Vanderbilt's refusal to pay all of its employees fairly is a continuation of the plantation mentality. These workers are people and they should be treated with respect and compensated adequately. This is not just one e-mail that went unanswered. This is four years of hard work to little avail. This is not something that can wait another four years while the adminsitration thinks it over. This is something that affects these people every day of their lives.
intellectually dishonest
I think comparing the civil rights struggle to the call for raising the wage a buck or so is not only intellectually dishonest, but also tactically unwise. No one will buy the comparison. There were legitimate issues, institutional issues, that were widespread across the entire south regarding Jim Crow laws, and they lasted for decades.
LIVE didn't get an email returned and decided to interrupt a Board of Trust meeting.
The administration has met with them on previous occasions. And, correct me if I am wrong, the wage has been increased previously due to pressure from the organization. So it's not like these "channels" haven't worked before.
I think this is silly quite frankly. I agree that the employees deserve a higher wage and the administration should listen to these concerns, but there is a time and place for it, and this doesn't rise to the level of civil disobedience. You've got to be kidding me. That does the names of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, the Freedom Riders, and every civil rights activist of the 1950's and 1960's a great disservice.
The "proper" channels
As mentioned in the posts below, there is a time and a place for the use of "proper" channels. However, there is also a time when the use of these proper channels must be assessed. As students of Vanderbilt, it is time to evaluate these conventional avenues which some are so quick to recommend. When, for over four years, attempts have been made to be heard, when, for over four years, students have demanded the opportunity to engage in genuine dialogue and they have repeatedly been ignored, and when for over four years, workers have not been paid enough to survive, something MUST be done. The proper channels are simply not working.
If Vanderbilt is the elite institution it claims to be, if it is worthy of the respect it demands, then over 300 workers employed by this institution should not be struggling to remain above the poverty line.
When the proper channels no longer work, it is not acceptable to be complacent, to wait. This is about people, people who cannot live on the wages they are earning. People who are struggling to feed themselves and their families, and it is about our responsibility as students to work toward establishing a more just institution.
Ah yes, so whenever you
Ah yes, so whenever you don't get your way, just make up your own rules and do whatever you want.
The fact is that there are procedures for addressing the Board. Marching in on them is no way to handle it and it doesn't get your point across.
Chancellor Gee is absolutely correct. Coming into a meeting uninvited and threatening people, "demanding" that they sign a petition, is immature and it's reckless. But of course, it's what student activists are best at and it's why they are laughed at and not taken seriously.
And now the administration, quite frankly, shouldn't take them seriously ever again. A bunch of hooligans who can't be trusted to follow rules and procedures.
Hmm. So you think African
Hmm. So you think African Americans, women, and other minority groups should have just followed "procedures," and everything would eventually have worked out just fine? That's ridiculous. LIVE followed these "procedures" for four years, but it didn't work.
their actions were necessary
What LIVE did wasn't rash or immature--it was necessary. You follow the rules of the system when you can, but when the system is obviously corrupt and will not produce results, you have to do something else. These employees work hard every single day to keep our community going, and we can't ignore their situation. The administration's failure to address this urgent need is absolutely SHAMEFUL. This university is not hurting for money. Vanderbilt can't pretend to be a community committed to service and honor if it refuses to pay its employees what they need and deserve.
Time for a word from the Administration
I am glad to see Vanderbilt students being active for a cause. We have been accused of being passive and complacent in times past and LIVE showed that protest and marches should still go on today. I think we need more progressives on campus that are willing to not only be apart of organizations that they believe in but to also make their voices heard loud and clear. I do however know that the issue of Living Wage has only been presented in one way. What I would like to see is the Administrations views on why changes for Living Wage have not occured. I think then students will be able to weigh their beliefs having both sides of the issue. The administration has its reasons for not increasing wages and I think it is time for the student body to be aware of them.
Charles R. Stanley Jr.
Sophomore Peabody College
Commodore Yearbook, Photo Editor
Hah
Glad to see that student radicals are willing to disrupt a meeting of adults to show their maturity and willingness to work with them in a responsible manner. Obviously, the next course of action is a sit-in, followed by effigy burning demonstrations outside Kirkland Hall.
Bravo, LIVE, you've really shown the administration and Vanderbilt that you're tough and in charge!
LIVE Action
While this action may seem extreme for some individuals, people must keep in mind that this campaign has been going on for years. LIVE students have meet with Vanderbilt officials, including Gordon Gee, as well as attended Young Alumni Meetings to have their voice heard. Nonetheless, little progress has been made with this issue. At some point, a person must realize that meetings can only take you so far if no tangible progress has been seen. The interruption of the Board of Trusts meeting was an unfortunate, but necessary event to highlight the urgency of the situation.
Interesting technique...
While I agree with LIVE's goals and think that we definitely need to take better care of Vanderbilt's employees, I have to say that I strongly agree with Chancellor Gee's comments. That's not how you deal with an administration. It was extremely immature, and couldn't possibly have had a better response; no one, not even someone who had the exact same view as the interlopers, would agree to sign a petition presented in that fashion - it would appear weak and make other groups think that they could always get the administration to capitulate through threats. I'm really interested in seeing what happens with the next meeting; I hope that LIVE behaves in a more appropriate fashion, because this is a really, really important issue and we need to get positive attention about it. LIVE needs to gain supporters, not turn people against them with histrionics.
Re: Interesting technique...
"LIVE needs to gain supporters, not turn people against them with histrionics."
That's an interesting thing to say. There is a large body of students on this campus that craves for this sort of activism to take place at Vanderbilt. Or perhaps you mean that what LIVE did will turn off Board members (and not necessarily students)? If it's the case that there are Board members who are sympathetic to the goals of LIVE, they certainly don't seem to have been very helpful in advancing the cause, and what's to make us believe that they will ever be?