When it comes to battling the abuses of sweatshop labor, we will get more done working together than against one other.
When it comes to battling child labor, forced labor, discrimination and harassment, we are all on the same side, heading for the same goals. I cannot think of a person on this campus — faculty member, staff, student or administrator — who does not want to support living wages, reasonable hours of work and adequate safety and health for workers. This is also true for those workers who make University licensed products — the clothing and other items that carry our name. When a product bears the University name, we all want to be as certain as we can that no harmful or unethical labor practices went into its manufacture.
How do we do that?
Together.
A number of students, including ASUO leaders, are actively seeking solutions. Some have put forward ideas for specific action. Many voted for action in the last election.
I have heard the student voices uniting behind one newly forming international monitor. We, as a university community, are acting — although perhaps not quite as quickly as some students have urged.
This is much more than a student issue. It is an issue for everyone at the University, including faculty members, staff and administrators. We are a diverse community, and we seek responsible answers that reflect and honor that diversity.
This means that ultimately the answers must be found by all of us, working together.
Any time an issue affects the entire campus, the entire campus should confront it and work to solve it. Sometimes, as in the case of licensing codes of conduct, a committee is formed that includes all the campus voices: students, faculty and staff. As is appropriate for an institution of higher learning dedicated both to free expression and due reflection, that group studies, thinks and discusses the issue, then makes recommendations to the president. Ultimately, under the laws of our state, the president must decide what action to take.
If this process seems deliberate at times, that is a cost we pay for honest dialogue.
On this campus, the “sweatshop” licensing issue began with an initiative from the President’s Office and hard work by an administration, faculty and student committee. These are some of the steps that have been taken.
* Last June, the University notified current manufacturers of licensed products that we were developing a licensing code of conduct and that manufacturers will be held accountable to that code if they want to make University licensed products.
* In November, at my request as University president, an advisory committee of faculty, students (including members of the Human Rights Alliance) and staff was formed to study this issue further and to make recommendations for action.
* In December, this committee set a time line for making a recommendation to me. That time line will be met, and recommendations will be forwarded to me later in spring term.
* In January, the University required our trademark licensees to provide full disclosure of factory locations where Oregon licensed apparel is produced. To date, the vast majority of University trademark licensees have responded.
* After I receive the committee’s recommendations, which are scheduled to be presented to me next week, I pledge to make a decision quickly reflecting its deliberations and my full and candid conversation with its members. A formal code of conduct will be in place in time for the next round of contracts with vendors. In addition, we will have a plan for the best ways to verify and monitor adherence to our code.
Our licensing code of conduct will be strong if it is not simply a cookie-cutter piece created by some other campus or outside group, but our own, fashioned by our own community, with ideas critically reviewed and discussed by our students, our faculty and staff.
The important point here is that our campus is a place where power — and responsibilities — are shared by a number of groups. Students have substantial power on their own: they choose student leaders; they oversee millions of dollars of student fees; they initiate and fund their own programs.
But when student groups’ interests extend to University-wide policy, other parts of our community become equally important. A report on this issue to the University Senate is pending. A student senator has given notice of motion relating to this subject. On these occasions shared governance, including faculty, staff and administration, comes into play.
Shared governance is not a recipe for delay. It is a blueprint for success.
We see the same goal. We are headed in the same direction. Let us reach it together, by honoring the role that many community voices deserve in this process.