By the Perspective Staff

The 1949 protest folk song “M.T.A.,” also known as “Charlie on the MTA,” tells the story of a man named Charlie who is trapped on the T because he is unable to pay his exit fare. Originally a campaign anthem for Progressive Party mayoral candidate Walter O’Brien (who promised to keep T fares low), the song has become a key part of Boston’s cultural lore – and its protagonist is now the namesake of the CharlieCard.

The state of Massachusetts and the city of Boston, home to the first rapid transit stations in the country (Park St. and Boylston), have a proud history of supporting public transportation. Yet, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, in response to pressure from the state, raised fares and cut some services earlier this month, and it will likely implement even more severe fare hikes and service cuts in the near future. These changes are designed to reduce the T’s $160 billion deficit and $5.2 billion debt. However, not only are these new measures detrimental to the environment; they will also negatively affect the social and economic livelihood of low-income people, students, and others who rely on public transportation. Rather than punishing T riders by reducing an essential public service, the state should seek more just ways to both deal with the deficit and strengthen and improve the T.

Given the negative externalities of automobiles, from local pollution to exacerbated global warming, the government should be doing as much as possible to encourage people to travel on trains and buses. Unfortunately, in the past, both the state and national government have often done just the opposite. In 1956, the Federal Aid Highway Act authorized the construction of the Interstate Highway System, the largest public works program in history. Though this program was beneficial in many ways, it also enabled unsustainable development patterns (i.e. suburban sprawl) and furthered urban-suburban segregation.

More recently, Boston’s $22 billion Big Dig highway improvement project increased the incentive to drive and mostly benefitted middle and upper class suburbanites. The Big Dig is a main reason for the MBTA’s current financial woes, for $3.6 billion of Big Dig debt was forced onto the MBTA through “forward funding” and other measures. This debt transfer, in turn, led to the current fare hikes and service cuts, unfairly harming lower-income Boston-area residents.

This is not the first instance of economic injustice resulting from the restructuring of the MBTA. In 1987, the MBTA rerouted the Orange Line so that it no longer connected Dudley Square, Roxbury (a largely black working-class neighborhood) to downtown Boston, effectively isolating the area. In response to community activist pressure, the MBTA provided a bus, and subsequently a Silver Line bus, to transport Dudley Square residents to and from downtown. Yet residents still refer to this bus as the “silver lie,” for it provides inferior and slower service compared to the Orange Line.

Similarly, the stricter deficit-slashing proposals on the table would eliminate some train and bus routes that connect low income communities and communities of color – such as Mattapan, a working-class neighborhood that is ¾ African American or Caribbean American – to the rest of the city.

In the face of these unjust proposals, a broad base of local and community activists have fought to protect public transportation in Boston and across the state. For instance, the Youth Affordabili(T) Coalition (YAC) has already united 22 groups, ranging from the Boston Student Advisory Council to the Roxbury Environmental Empowerment Project, to protect the MBTA, and the Coalition’s numbers are growing. YAC members and others have testified at public hearings and continue to hold rallies to fight against fare hikes and service cuts and to advocate for a Youth T Pass and more bus routes.

The coalition also supports more reasonable ways to reduce the T’s debt. These include encouraging Boston-area universities to pay for university passes for their students, renegotiating the MBTA’s interest rate swaps with banks, and removing the T’s Big Dig (i.e. forward funding) debt. Another long-term solution would be to increase the gas tax, which Massachusetts has not done since 1991, even while it has raised T fares multiple times. Raising the gas tax would create an incentive for people to use public transportation rather than driving; it would also shift the burden of payment away from low-income urban residents.

As a public program, the MBTA ought to focus on serving the residents of Massachusetts well, rather than maximizing cost-efficiency as a private business might do. Public transportation is a hallmark of a modern city in which people are free to travel for work, school, or pleasure, rather than remaining trapped in their own neighborhoods. Public transportation can also be a great equalizer, for it enables people without access to a car – such as students, low-income people, and the elderly – to access a city’s economic, educational, and social opportunities. Furthermore, the MBTA serves to connect and unite the residents of an often-segregated metropolitan area. Additionally, strong public transportation systems curb automobile use and incentivize environmentally sustainable urban living.

The Occupy movement, in both its style and message, has drawn attention to importance of public space and the public sphere. In the face of nationwide austerity measures, we at Perspective hope that the MBTA will avoid fare hikes and service cuts, continue to provide comprehensive and affordable public transportation for people across the state, and stand as a force for environmental and social justice in Massachusetts.

There are currently several hundred people camped out in Boston’s Dewey Square, in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park. There have been demonstrations involving thousands of protesters marching through the streets of downtown Boston, stopping traffic and bringing the city to a standstill. Scores have been arrested for acts of civil disobedience, as the campsite has grown and been forcibly constrained once more. And these events show little indication of ending any time soon. What are we to make of this?

The media—along with the politicians and economic potentates the “occupy” protests are addressing—seem to be quite keen on comparing the demonstrations to those of the “tea party” movement. Yes, the movements do share certain centrally important grievances, among them the United States’ startlingly uneven distribution of wealth, and the injustices perpetrated by the political institutions that promote these disparities. But while galvanized by similar—or even the same—causes, the similarities end there.

To begin with, the two movements differ in their origins, which go a long way toward explaining the overall motivation and direction of each. The tea party, though marketed as a grassroots popular uprising—and, in truth, for many it is—was manufactured with the organizational and financial help of large corporations, lobbyists, and the support of Fox News. The Occupy Wall Street movement, on the other hand, was organized by a Vancouver-based not-for-profit magazine, responding to popular resentment among Americans and contemporaneous international movements of similar scope and purpose. Billing itself as “the ninety-nine percent” (which, according to organizers, includes members of the other one percent who support economic justice and equality), Occupy Wall Street and affiliated protests in Boston and nationwide could hardly be more of a movement of the people.

Another major difference lies in the purpose of the protests. The goal of the tea partiers would appear to be getting the government to make life easier—by creating more jobs with higher wages, and improving the value of the dollar, but not by directly providing jobs or money to those in need; government hand-outs are “socialism.” This could be characterized as something of a half-hearted welfare state, in which the government is basically supposed to provide everything, but the citizen can still feel as though he or she is an independent and valuable individual in the American system. As such, according to tea partiers, the wealthy and corporations should not be penalized with higher taxes just because they have done well for themselves.

Those taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protests, on the other hand, believe the extremely wealthy and corporations should be taxed more, because they have made their money thanks to economic policies and regulations that have allowed that money to be made at the expense of the American people. And once the financial crisis hit, according to the Occupy protesters, these corporations and individuals were bailed out, taking still more money from the coffers of the people. If it is on the backs of the overwhelming majority of Americans that this money is made, the Occupy movement argues, why is it wrong that it be taxed for the people’s benefit?

While the basis for the tea party’s vague demands seems to lie outside the realm of the rational, the Occupy Wall Street movement’s demands are logical and altogether possible. They want higher taxes for the wealthiest citizens and for corporations; they want transparency in government and in private economic institutions—which, thanks to taxpayer bail-outs, now ought to be held to the highest standard of accountability; they want reforms that would further separate politics from finance. Occupy Wall Street and associated occupations’ demands have been validated by visits from distinguished academics and thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and Slavoj Žižek. The strength of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has enabled it to draw these notables along with thousands of new protesters from all areas of American society, is the desire to end the American culture of corporate greed. Idealistic? Absolutely. Possible? We shall see.

When the state legislatures of Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio passed measures to curtail the labor rights of public employees, it appeared from Boston to be merely another case of Republican legislators attempting to cover up their own fiscal irresponsibility with workers’ unassailable rights. But now this fight has arrived at our doorstep.

In the middle of the night of April 26, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a bill flatly infringing on public-sector unions’ collective-bargaining powers. The bill, if passed into law, will allow local officials to “unilaterally set health insurance co-payments and deductibles for their employees after a monthlong discussion period with unions,” according to The New York Times.

This bill, which passed the Massachusetts House at 11:30pm by a vote of 111-42, with 81 Democrats voting yea, certainly came as a surprise. Though alarming, Midwestern Republicans’ attempts to cut workers’ rights to save money earlier this year surprised no one. But late-night anti-labor bills are not what we would expect from members of the traditionally pro-labor Democratic Party, and certainly not in liberal Massachusetts. Though the bill’s success in the Massachusetts Senate is far from guaranteed, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick has praised the House’s actions in passing the bill.

One thing this bill’s passage makes clear is that the pressing need to cut costs and increase revenue is an issue that transcends party or political ideology. Massachusetts House leaders promoting the bill claim that it will save municipalities $100 million in the next fiscal year, funds that are expected to cover shortfalls in public safety and education budgets. But is taking away labor rights the only way to accomplish this?

To be sure, collective-bargaining rights for public employees differ from those privately employed in some very important respects. In the private sector, the worst-case scenario for both unionized workers and employers who have a collective-bargaining agreement is mutual ruin, which certainly has effects beyond the individuals involved but which is an ultimately contained phenomenon. For municipal or state employees, however, the failure of collective bargaining means not only negative effects for the individual workers and for the government that employs them, but also negative effects for the education system, for public safety, et cetera, and for every citizen that relies on these government services.

Thus, it is understandable that the government would want to reserve the final word, even at the expense of workers’ rights, to prevent catastrophic cuts to public services with far-reaching negative effects. But just because Wisconsin Republicans believe destroying labor rights is the only solution to does not make it so. If municipal spending on union benefits is so out of control, the answer is not to crush labor rights. Raising taxes—which one would have expected as the Democrats’ first recourse—is always an option; while not optimal, it is preferable to oppressing labor. More sensible than raising taxes and much more honest than a midnight legislative session would be rounds of direct negotiations between the state and its employees in which it is made clear that the current situation is not tenable. Failing any sort of bilateral agreement, legal channels such as labor arbitration could certainly be used to resolve the dispute.

Avoiding confrontation with the unions implies not only cowardice but also a galling and disappointing lack of respect on the part of the state of Massachusetts for its workers.

In Support of Unions and their Rights

Open warfare between capital and labor is hardly a new phenomenon. But in this age of intense political correctness and unceasing public scrutiny, rarely do representatives of government openly attack the fundamental rights of labor. And yet, this is the current state of affairs in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio.

In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker has proposed a bill that would prohibit collective bargaining by public workers on issues other than wages, require unions to vote yearly on their continued existence, and increase workers’ contributions to pensions and benefits. Wisconsin’s Democrat representatives have left the state to withhold a quorum and prevent the bill’s passage. Popular protests have been raging in and around the Capitol in Madison since mid-February.

In Indiana, several measures are on the table that would cripple organized labor, including a bill prohibiting mandatory union membership as a prerequisite for employment in the private sector. All but three Democrats have left the state, as in Wisconsin.

A bill introduced in Ohio would end collective bargaining for state workers and allow the state to hire those willing to cross the picket line during a strike. A revision in the works would allow collective bargaining for wages only but ban strikes.

There is no question that the unions are losing popularity in the United States. Advocates for education reform, along with the film Waiting for Superman, have absolutely thrashed the teachers’ unions for their irresponsibility and recalcitrance, supposedly contributing to the failure of our public education system, according to critics. Unions are rarely mentioned when everything goes smoothly; it is when the transit workers go on strike and shut down public transportation, or when the sanitation workers strike and the trash piles up, or when the nurses strike and hospitals are left understaffed and patients unattended, that we hear about the unions.

Many Americans think of the unions as voting blocs or as inconveniences. We forget (or are not old enough to remember) the generations-long battles for fair wages, hours, benefits, &c. that have raised Americans’ standard of living so high that we have forgotten just how low it would be without the unions. We forget the protections against arbitrary or politically motivated firings and vindictive measures against workers and their rights. And perhaps most important, we forget that in our capitalist system the bottom line is everything, and that capital will always attempt to exploit labor to the greatest extent it can. The unions are the vital bulwark against this one-sided exploitation.

Let us leave aside for the time being the fact that it was reckless spending that got these states into financial trouble in the first place, mistakes for which they are now trying to put the burden on public employees. Let us leave aside that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker discussed his strategy to defeat the public employee unions during a twenty-minute phone call with a journalist pretending to be conservative billionaire David Koch, revealing that government may be less siding against labor and more thoroughly in bed with capital.

If states truly need to raise money quickly, and refuse to raise taxes, and refuse to cut spending in other areas, there are several acceptable options to take in dealing with the unions. They can negotiate to lower wages. They can negotiate to lay off workers. They can renegotiate contracts. The unions, in turn, can make their own bargaining priorities, taking economic realities into account. And if the members of the unions do not believe the newly negotiated conditions to be appropriate, they can strike, if the law permits. The current situation in the Midwest is not a case of the unions’ driving employers out of business with ridiculous demands (which, though stubborn and mutually destructive, is also permissible short-term stance for labor to take), but rather a case of states trying to balance their budgets by throwing their own employees under the bus, and not by negotiating economic concessions in good faith by collective bargaining, but by restricting unions’ rights. It is one thing to renegotiate terms; it is another entirely to strip away fundamental negotiating rights by eliminating collective bargaining. The desire to eliminate collective bargaining shows, above all, the states’ total disregard for their own employees, and may set the stage for completely arbitrary government action based on political views or considerations, or simply to fill budget shortfalls.

Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana are not the only ones renegotiating contracts with their employees: Harvard University’s food service workers are currently beginning their own contract renegotiation campaign. At a meeting on February 24, the leaders of Unite Here Local 26 called on the union’s members to “fight like our union brothers and sisters in Wisconsin” to prevent the Harvard Corporation from cutting more workdays and increasing the cost of benefits (including raising the standard healthcare co-pay from $15 to $40). Just as the burden for financial mismanagement and corporate tax breaks is falling on public employees in the Midwest, at Harvard, too, the unions are being forced to pay for the alleged corruption and imprudent investments of the Summers years, the union’s leaders claim. Truly perplexing is that the university’s endowment grew some $1.5 billion last year according to the union, while the union’s members earned an average of $3,000 less.

More than a demand for higher wages and better benefits, the food service workers union’s message is a demand for respect. They feel disrespected on a very personal level (inconsiderate Harvard University Dining Services managers, for example) and as a group of dedicated and vital employees who feel the University is ignoring their needs.

In these upcoming contract negotiations, Harvard has the opportunity to show its workers and community the profound respect that they deserve. Harvard must demonstrate that it supports the rights of labor, and in so doing send a message to those that oppose those fundamental workers’ rights in the Midwest, across the nation, and around the world.

By Channing Spencer

Results from a recent Newsweek poll showed that 25% of Americans think that Obama is Muslim. With 52% of Republicans believing that Obama is a closeted Muslim, it is clear such attempts to link him to the faith are being are politically motivated. Perhaps even more disturbing is that the mere possibility of Obama being a Muslim is so frightening to Americans that painting him as such would be considered a viable political tactic in the first place. Why does this issue fascinate Americans and occupy so large a part of the public consciousness?

These polls reflect a rise in anti-Islam sentiment not just in United States, but the whole world. Today, anti-Islam rhetoric and open criticism abound in a noticeably more pointed manner than ever before. Perhaps most alarming is that such rhetoric is no longer confined to the fundamentalists of other religions who have long been critics of Islam. A string of recent anti-Islam attacks around the world demonstrate that such fear-mongering tactics are also becoming the weapon of choice for respected public figures and notable members of society whom one would be least likely to suspect capable of propagating such discriminatory speech. Recent comments by Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor, attest to this trend. In a speech addressing comments by a central bank board member who said that Muslim immigrants were making Germany “more stupid,” Merkel criticized “multiculturalism” and failed attempts at assimilation. “We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don’t accept them don’t have a place here,” she said. Merkel’s remarks highlight an unfortunate reality:  we live in an era of regression where even world leaders, who are elected as the representatives of the people, express no shame in publicly espousing the bigoted prejudices one would expect to be confined to the most intolerant members of society.

A blog post on The New Republic website by former Harvard lecturer Marty Peretz, demonstrates that the academic world is now equally a playground for this anti-Muslim frenzy. In his post, Peretz described Muslim life as “cheap” and suggested that Muslims “are not worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment.” Peretz later apologized after a New York Times article by Nicholas Kristof criticized his comments and the growing anti-Islamic sentiment in America. However, Peretz’s apology was anything but heartfelt, as he affirmed his belief in his remarks by noting that his comments about Muslims were “a statement of fact.” Despite Peretz’s brazen remarks and complete disregard for Muslim sensibilities, Harvard’s Committee on Degrees on Social Studies voted to continue its plans to honor Peretz through the creation of an undergraduate fund in his name. There is simply no ethical justification for their decision, which serves as a clear demonstration of the secondary role to which moral considerations are increasingly relegated. “He made – to put it mildly – inappropriate comments about Muslims at a time when they are being scapegoated across the country,” said Assistant Director of Studies and Lecturer, Dr. Thomas Ponniah. Ponniah suggested that “another option would have been to reject the money and, instead, start an alternative fund that would reach out to the whole country—not just alumni—for funding.” Uncomfortable with Peretz’s comments, Ponniah and five other faculty members walked out during Peretz’s lunchtime speech at the Social Studies Department’s 50th Anniversary Celebration on September 25th.

Some students also voiced their criticism of Peretz’s comments and the Social Studies Department’s decision to honor him with the creation of a fund in his name. Before the Social Studies 10a lecture on October 5th, a group of students handed out flyers that read, “We, the Social Studies concentrators of 2010, demand that the name of Martin Peretz Fund be changed. A 25-Year Record of Racism Cannot Be Erased with $650,000.” About twelve minutes into the lecture, some students stood up in protest, read the flyer, and led a walkout consisting of 41 of the approximate 140 students in attendance. Many have questioned the effectiveness of the group’s actions, with some even calling them “disrespectful” and “inappropriate.” To the former point, it is important to note that the student protestors prefaced their actions by addressing Professor Jewett, who was speaking at the time of the interruption, and declaring that their actions were not directed toward him as a professor, but rather to the department’s decision to accept the fund. To the latter point, what these critics fail to understand is that the moral urgency of this issue dispels any doubt as to the legitimacy of the student’s actions, for there is never an “inappropriate” time for speaking out against discrimination. “We at Harvard are privileged. Therefore, we should take it upon ourselves to find ways to defend those who are being misrepresented,” said Ponniah. What makes the student’s actions even more appropriate is the current political and social climate in which open hostility to Islam is becoming an increasingly visible phenomenon. Peretz’s comments came in light of growing anti-Muslim sentiment and “a far right movement that is trying to discredit President Obama by linking him to the fears that the public has of Muslims,” said Ponniah.

Astonishingly, the reaction over Peretz’s comments was largely confined to academic circles, with the exception of a few responses. Despite their undeniable gravity, Peretz’s statements did not receive considerable media coverage, nor were they brought to the attention of the general public. The fact that his comments remained virtually confined to the academic realm  evidences the unfortunate tendency of society to turn a blind eye to the increasing prominence of anti-Islamic discourse. One must wonder how apathetic society would be if the lives of another demographic had been called “cheap.” If Merkel had said that Jews do not belong in Germany or if Peretz had said that Black life is “cheap,” the public backlash would be immediate and uncontainable. Many would be outraged and countless leaders would condemn her comments. In some ways, failure to act is tantamount to tacit approval. Thus, the absence of a similar response towards Merkel’s and Peretz’s comments attest to a dangerous fact: society is apathetic to the prevalence of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Despite society’s willingness to ignore the seriousness of the anti-Muslim frenzy that is gripping the world, the student walkout points to the existence of some hope that not everyone is willing to qualify the application of values and religious freedom. Indeed, student activism, from its birth during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, has long been more progressive and morally advanced than the public conscience. Much like their predecessors, the students who protested the committee’s decision to continue with the creation of a fund in Peretz’s name by walking out displayed a refusal to condone racism and discrimination. These students are ahead of their times because they recognize that the bigotry and prejudice are still present, though the targeted demographic has changed. While some have questioned the effectiveness of the student walkout, it is undeniable that something amazing happened.  “I was happy to see the students come back for the next class – however their action does deserve some thoughtful consideration. When was the last time that Harvard students walked out of a class for the sake of a principle? Just that intention should make us all feel a little more optimistic,” said Ponniah