EUGENE, Ore. -- When Phil
Knight, the
chief executive of Nike,
withdrew a
promised
$30 million donation to the University
of Oregon last month, his announcement had the tone of an angry parent.
He chastised the university for joining
the Worker Rights Consortium, a
group that monitors conditions in factories that make clothing with college
logos. He accused the university of
"inserting itself into the new global
economy where I make my living"
and doing so "on the wrong side, fumbling a teachable moment."
Mr. Knight, an Oregon graduate,
was angry that the university had
joined this consortium rather than the
Fair Labor Association, a group that
includes as members the same industries that have profited from sweatshop conditions in their production
plants. The Worker Rights Consortium is based on the premise that
work conditions will not be changed by
codes and monitors that come from
industry, but by involvement of workers, through collective bargaining
with management.
In joining the
consortium, the
University of Oregon pledged to use
its influence to improve conditions at
factories producing clothes with
the university logo. Mr. Knight, accusing his alma mater of shredding its
"bonds of trust" with him, seemed
offended that it had not asked his
permission.
The university's decision was not
made lightly. In March, a referendum
sponsored by the student government
yielded a three-fourths majority vote
in support of membership. A committee accountable to the the university
president, David B. Frohnmayer, and
made up of students, faculty, administrators and alumni, voted unanimously the same month in favor of joining.
Then the University Senate, composed
of faculty and students, passed a resolution calling for membership. It was
only after all these steps that President Frohnmayer signed the university into membership.
Mr. Knight's punitive reaction really questions the autonomy of the university itself. If the voice of one alumnus held more weight
than a year of university-wide deliberation, what role would
there be for shared
governance on campus? If donations
from corporate
America depended
on toeing a corporate
line, the university
would be better off without the money.
The goal of students across the
country who are organizing around
sweatshop issues is to create widespread change in an industry where
insufficient wages and mandatory
overtime are common. In many third
world and American apparel factories, there have been reports of intimidation of workers who try to
speak out. And because it is easy for
these factories to cut and run, vanishing across national borders and abandoning workers, many people are hesitant to organize unions or demand a
living wage.
The Worker Rights Consortium and
the student anti-sweatshop campaign
challenge companies like Nike not
only to let the public know the conditions in apparel factories, but to begin
long-term change.
Will the debate about sweatshop
conditions move beyond the specifics
of monitoring and toward establishing
the right to organize? Phil Knight's
withdrawal of money from the University of Oregon sends the signal that his
company is resisting a move in that
direction.
Sarah Jacobson, a senior at the University of Oregon, is active in United Students Against Sweatshops.
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
###
