It's easy to dismiss the creed of Bret Vallacher '10 against the College's supposed "classism" ("Work-Study Woes," Jan. 30) as the sour grapes reaction of a student who failed to find work and chose to blame it on the biases of the system. I believe, however, that Vallacher's column reveals much more about the workings of class at Dartmouth than perhaps he even realizes.
Vallacher wants to show that the College is guilty of classism and a "communistic" betrayal of capitalism with regard to its employment policies. His argument and choice of words, however, betray the real tenor of his "classist" argument.
In order for Vallacher to make his case, he must show that 1) the College systematically disadvantages hard-working students who are not on financial aid by restricting campus employment to work-study recipients, 2) to grant priority to federal work-study aid recipients violates the principles of a market economy in a blatantly unfair manner and 3) there are no substantial differences between employing a federal work-study student and a non-work-study student. I shall show that his argument fails on all three accounts, while at the same time expressing a degree of ignorance and classism unbecoming to a serious member of any community.
First, let's take a look at Vallacher's claim. He tells the reader that he has applied to jobs that meet his standard of a "good" job: one that builds his resume, involves a "non-hectic work environment" and "decent pay." He then lists the various places where has applied and been turned out -- all within the library system and all desk jobs. In other words, Vallacher is interested only in cushy jobs that allow him to do his homework. "Jobs with strenuous labor" are unacceptable to him.
The fact that Vallacher admittedly is only interested in working at a desk job in a library fails to inspire sympathy for his cause. There are plenty of available jobs through Dartmouth Dining Services, academic departments and various campus organizations. That Vallacher does not have a job testifies not to the classism of Dartmouth, but to the hard market reality that a laborer with few skills who is unwilling to work the majority of potential jobs is not likely to find work.
Second, and more importantly, Vallacher also neglects to mention that the federal work-study program reimburses universities for between 50 and 100 percent of a student's wages, thus making the cost of his labor to the university at least twice as expensive as a work-study student. Essentially, Vallacher, a college freshman with few marketable labor skills, is complaining that the College discriminates against him because it will not overpay for unqualified labor. Isn't that how market capitalism is supposed to work? Even if his experience on Capitol Hill is somehow supposed to translate into an ability to scan books, why should the College pay twice as much for him when the necessary skills can easily be taught to a work-study student? Like many "conservatives," Vallacher raises the standard of market capitalism only when it fails to suit his interests.
Finally, the federal work-study program constitutes part of a student's financial aid package. That is, work-study money is earmarked for things like tuition, room and board, transportation and books. It forms a significant part of financial aid packages, which allow non-privileged students to attend Dartmouth. If Vallacher means to argue that need-based financial aid is classist, his position is indefensible. What he is saying, however, is that his desire for pocket money outweighs the need of a student who cannot afford the staggering cost of a Dartmouth education -- a cost that Vallacher's "middle class" family can bear. I do not mean to say that Vallacher is wrong to want work, or that his parents should provide him with spending money -- quite the contrary. I merely want to point out that different standards apply to the labor of a work-study student and a non-work-study student. The College -- and most Americans -- have decided that differential is in society's interest.
In short, Vallacher is the one guilty of classism. By presuming that his wants outweigh the actual and documented needs of less-fortunate students at Dartmouth, Vallacher shows a profound contempt for both the principles of economics and equality of opportunity.
