SOCIAL TOPICS (Archive): HUMAN RIGHTS

Published, June 1999

       Last year, articles bemoaning students’ declining interest in activism saturated the popular media. Many journalists cited the booming economy, a dearth of galvanizing social issues, and a general indifference on the part of many young Americans as contributors to the decreased level of campus activity. However, as the decade comes to a close, it appears a new energy in campus activism is rapidly emerging. Echoing the 1980s’ struggle for South African divestiture, today’s student activists are once again finding a rallying cry in the economic side of social injustice. This time around, the issue is sweatshops.

       Alarmed by allegations of sweatshop conditions in factories manufacturing university-licensed apparel, students at colleges across the country, including Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, University of Michigan, and University of Wisconsin, have staged demonstrations, sit-ins and teach-ins in recent months. American colleges and universities have long engaged manufacturers of T-shirts, caps, sweatshirts, jackets, and other school apparel in license agreements to use the schools’ official names, insignias, and colors. The numbers are impressive: according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the collegiate licensing business is a US$2.5 billion dollar industry. For many schools, licensing fees generate millions of dollars in revenue and provide funding for scholarships, athletic departments, and student services. The University of Michigan, for instance, generated over $5.5 million dollars in licensing revenues in 1998. Yet while most schools yield far less than Michigan, campus apparel remains a significant source of revenue for most colleges and universities.

       Like many labor activists, more and more student leaders are calling for colleges and universities to require their licensed apparel manufacturers to adopt codes of conduct. Ideally, codes of conduct mandate disclosure of factory locations, guarantee freedom of association and collective bargaining for factory workers, and require the payment of a living wage to all factory employees. Some codes also provide for independent monitoring to ensure compliance.

       In July 1998, student groups from across North America joined together to form United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS). USAS’s mission is to coordinate student campaigns on individual campuses and foster cooperation between universities in enforcing supplier codes of conduct. With the support of several labor unions, including the AFL-CIO and UNITE, USAS has organized over 50 protests in the past several months calling for colleges to adopt strict codes of conduct.

       USAS’s activism efforts have yielded significant results: On March 17, 1999 administrators at 17 major universities announced their intention to affiliate with the Fair Labor Association (FLA), an organization founded by the apparel industry and human rights groups and supported by the White House. However, protests erupted again in mid-April when USAS called on university administrators to address issues not covered by the FLA, including disclosure of factory monitoring results and a living wage guarantee. As Brown University student Nora Rosenburg says, "The FLA does absolutely nothing to raise the sub-poverty level wages for those who sew our T-shirts; it allows the corporations to force 16-year-old girls to work 60 hours a week without overtime pay, and it lacks necessary stipulations to guarantee the rights of women. Universities simply need to hold themselves to a higher standard."

       Contrary to the recent media blitz denouncing campus life as plagued by apathy, students have not dropped out. Undeniably, today’s youth continue to play a leadership role in bringing issues of social justice to the fore.

       Portfolio companies in apparel and toy manufacturing are priority candidates for dialogue about working conditions in owned and subcontracted manufacturing facilities. We ask companies about their global labor standards and practices, including the most challenging questions on sustainable wages, independent monitoring and workers’ right to organize freely. We continually urge targeted companies to strengthen their standards, and to work openly and cooperatively with NGOs and others. We also have filed shareholder resolutions in selected cases when companies are unresponsive, requesting information on international employment policies and working conditions.

       The scope, nature and complexity of sweatshop abuses have led us to look for solutions beyond corporate dialogues. We have supported NGOs devoted to informing the public and monitoring the plight of workers in substandard factories. For example, we have provided funding to send observers from the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras to monitor conditions in a Mexican factory. We have helped sponsor supplier conferences in China, convened by Massachusetts-based Verité, to open a dialogue with Chinese suppliers about improving human rights and labor standards in their factories. On the public policy front, we have joined others in applauding the efforts of the White House-supported Apparel Industry Partnership to eradicate sweatshops, while at the same time urging the Partnership to take more substantial action.