The Daily’s Nov. 8 editorial (“Living Wage Campaign wrong for Northwestern”) generated over ten responses on the Forum page in the past two weeks. Most have decried the paper’s position, including social justice activist Cleve Jones in a speech to NCDC and three Weinberg professors in a letter to the editor. While criticisms of this editorial board’s position are legitimate, I am writing to commend The Daily for generating and indeed welcoming such an extensive debate on the topic.
Last month, this column questioned whether the opinion of The Daily editorial board matters enough to justify the publication of biweekly editorials. While devotees of the Living Wage Campaign might think that The Daily’s opinion was unfounded or unprincipled, this is exactly the type of editorial that The Daily should be publishing. The paper presented evidence and took a position that generated a continuing public debate in which the living wage position was given more column inches than its opposition. The opportunity was indeed a boon for the Living Wage Campaign – the editorial prompted its leaders to clarify and adapt their arguments to rally current supporters and convince new ones.
The Daily had refrained from taking an editorial position on the Living Wage Campaign as the organization grew over the last academic year and into the fall. In late October Editor in Chief Brian Rosenthal called a special editorial board meeting to consider whether The Daily should comment on the campaign. A presentation from the leaders of the Living Wage Campaign began the meeting; an undergraduate economics student followed their presentation with a few criticisms; and immediate deliberations yielded no consensus.
The editorial board was sympathetic to the emotional pull of the living wage campaign’s argument, but seemed reluctant to overlook the lack of support from the Economics Department. Brian asked all editors to mull it over before reconsidering the topic at the next editorial board meeting. They did, and the board ultimately agreed that there were better ways to support workers than the Living Wage Campaign’s current demands. When Brian asked the group whether anyone supported the Living Wage Campaign – highlighting that he himself was torn – no hands went up. The Board’s position was clear, and – with consensus – they decided to write an editorial.
The Living Wage Campaign and others have disputed facts in the editorial, and The Daily has committed to publishing letters and even a correction that make public these discrepancies. The Daily delayed publication of one letter, claiming that the letter’s authors must fix a factual inaccuracy before including it in the paper. The Daily has planned a forthcoming InFocus feature article on the lives of workers at Northwestern. This is an area where – the Living Wage Campaign notes – coverage has been wanting, and The Daily is making an effort to improve.
Thus far I might sound like an apologist for The Daily – that is neither my job nor my intention. It is easy to criticize the paper’s decision to invite a random economics student to speak at the initial editorial meeting or the editorial board’s reluctance to entertain non-economic arguments for the campaign’s legitimacy. I do not agree with the editorial board’s position, but commend them for publishing it (knowing that they would be accused of soullessness) and having the patience to endure and print extensive criticism of their position.
The Daily must continue to cover the Living Wage Campaign without any hint of bias or apology. It should work with the campaign to identify and highlight stories of injustice and hardship in the Northwestern community. And, if The Daily does stand by its statements in the editorial, it should explore what alternatives to the living wage would look like. What type of “continuing education opportunities” would workers find useful? The Daily’s editorial raises questions that this paper’s reporters can seek to answer. This debate should not devolve into a fight between student leaders; it should continue to raise tough questions, the answers to which will uncover new information that can inform our understanding of what is best and most equitable for the Northwestern community.
Public Editor Ben Armstrong is a Weinberg senior. He can be reached at [email protected].
