One of the fundamentals on which our government is based is the idea that change in leadership allows for change and betterment throughout the country. It is the impetus behind the 22nd amendment, and it is why so many are claiming this year’s election to be the most significant of our lifetime.

In the shadow of this larger impending decision, however, few people have taken notice of the fact that a similar shift in power has taken place at Vanderbilt, and the potential for ramifications on our campus is huge. This February, Nick Zeppos was announced as our new chancellor after the departure of Gordon Gee in 2007. Almost two weeks into the school year, however, I still have little idea of what kind of a chancellor Zeppos plans to be.

Although many were quick to praise Gee’s competent ruling of our university once he was out the door, there were certainly moments of questionable judgment throughout his tenure — the sudden demolition of the men’s soccer team, a domestic drug scandal and, perhaps most frustrating, a close-minded attitude regarding the fight for a living wage for Vanderbilt employees.

Many upperclassmen will remember the year-long struggle in 2006 by the student organization LIVE and the National Labor Union to raise the base wage of campus employees from $7.55 an hour to $10.18, a number calculated by LIVE and adopted by the union as constituting a living wage in Nashville for a dual-income family of four. Despite fervent efforts by both organizations, months of animated editorials in the Hustler and a highly criticized sit-in during a meeting of the Board of Trustees, that ambitious but reasonable goal was not reached.

Instead, our employees settled for a compromise contract that promised to gradually raise the base pay to $10.00, a number just under what was asked for by the union, and the administration made a conscious point to inform LIVE and the student body that the money for this reluctant increase came from academic and financial aid funds.

Some might say adequate progress was made in such a short amount of time and the Vanderbilt community should be pleased with how close we came to reaching the goal. I enrolled at this university, however, primarily for the sheer height of its standards and the ambition of its ideals, and it is my firm belief that as long as our chancellor was one of the highest paid university officials in the nation, it should not have taken such a battle to bring the rest of our employees within throwing distance of a comfortable living. Throughout the debate, Gee and our administration offered several rational reasons why we do not offer a living wage, but no one has ever sufficiently explained to me why it cannot be done.

The year is now 2008, and it is safe to say that over the last four semesters, the number comparable to a living wage in America has risen significantly. The contract agreed upon by Vanderbilt with its employees has reached its halfway point and will expire in spring of 2010. Wouldn’t it be great if, this time around, our new chancellor helped serve as the driving force in the fight for the rights of his employees, instead of the figurehead against whom his students must continually butt heads?

I challenge you, Nick Zeppos, to be proactive rather than defensive as a leader, and to rise to the challenge this great opportunity offers you to emerge as a source of true change on our prestigious campus. I know we can do better.

Carolyn Pippen is a senior in the College of Arts and Science. She can be reached at carolyn.m.pippen@vanderbilt.edu.