, the problem in question undoubtedly is not confined to the university's campus in Cambridge. I suspect that universities and colleges throughout this country pay their lower-level employees on the cheap, failing to incorporate the so-called "living wage."

I am sure that is true, indeed it is the nature of capitalism to pay no more than one absolutely must, and I'm sure that if Harvard et al. could get their hands on Nike's 50cent-a-month Bangladeshi kids, they would. What caught my eye about the article in terms of possible relevance to this Board was the careless use of language from an institute of advanced learning. the article says "Just two weeks ago a spokesman for the school said, "We will not be adopting a living wage." I would have thought that Harvard would have phrased its refusal more adroitly, rather than conceding the term "living wage". To openly say that one will not pay a "living wage" seems to be rather inept, given that it implies (concedes?) that one does care if one's employees live or not. There was another excellent article in the NYT recently on the importance of the mot juste in politics, with reference to the phrase "fast-tracking". It seems that Harvard, on this occasion at least, could not be bothered fighting the propaganda war.