Corporate controversy

Sweatshop movement must keep activist roots

Throughout the past year of anti-sweatshop activism, discussion and decision-making, University students have not been hit with pepper spray. They have not been threatened by police force. Their demands have been heard, considered, and in many cases, met. Though not always visibly, University President Lee Bollinger has been behind much of this attitude of support for student activism. However, Bollinger has also followed a trend of careful consideration and compromise when decisions were to be made, and he continued that trend last week in a decision to provisionally join the Fair Labor Association, an organization formed and partially governed by corporate interests like Nike.

The University's response has been fairly unique regarding the Workers' Rights Consortium. While other universities have resorted to police force before eventually giving in to student demands, the University has answered the student voice with cautious understanding. Perhaps the most important response has been the provisional approval of the WRC. This response not only supports fair labor, but encourages student activism.

Activism is an important part of the political process in democracy, and such activism on the college level helps prepare students for future careers in ways that conventional classrooms cannot. Under the guidance of Bollinger and other University administrators and educators, student activists learn the difficulties of making themselves heard; they learn to support their words with their actions, but they also learn to compromise. This is a welcome change from the lessons of fear and belittlement that other universities inflict.

A more controversial response has been one of support for the FLA. Many University students discredit the FLA as a corporate-controlled organization that shares biased information only in the interest of higher profits. Both Bollinger and the Advisory Committee on Labor Standards and Human Rights have acknowledged these potential problems, but the resolution to work with the FLA is more an admission than a decision. While the University's interests may be better represented by the WRC, this organization does not currently have the resources to meet fundamental factory inspection goals. Though they will be at the mercy of corporate greed, the FLA does have resources and may be persuaded to use them to meet directives that are, in theory, similar to those of the WRC.

The University could abandon the FLA, or in an effort to compromise, it could resign from both the FLA and the WRC. However, the FLA, while it has negative aspects, neither affect the WRC, nor do they detract from the positives of the FLA. Both organizations have their weak points, including a shared lack of university representation that both Bollinger and the Advisory Committee have noted.

The WRC is a relatively new organization. Though it may theoretically best represent the wishes of the University, it is not alone strong enough to fulfill its directives. As the sweatshop movement gains more national support, it may also gain a national code of conduct for licensees. The WRC can increase its effectiveness by giving more representation to the universities that support it as well as pushing for a national code of conduct. The WRC does and should continue to have a prominent place in the University's fair labor directives. Until the WRC has the necessary strength and resources, however, the University can best meet its goals for labor equality through the combined efforts of the WRC and the FLA.