We were disappointed to hear Nike CEO Phil Knight’s repudiation of the University’s decision to join the Worker Rights Consortium. We stand firmly behind the decision of University President Dave Frohnmayer to join the WRC. We believe it is the right decision made in the right way. The entire process of joining the WRC took more than a year, as Frohnmayer took counsel from a student vote, the faculty and the recommendations of a research-based committee. All members of the campus community were represented in this decision, even the alumni, as an alumnus sat on the committee who gave the unanimous recommendation of support for the WRC. The decision to join the WRC was also the closest act of shared governance this campus has ever seen.
There was much time, thought and research put into this decision, and we caution against taking the word of Knight in identifying the fundamental flaws in the WRC as he certainly has a very vested interest in having to adhere to our code. Would one ask a chef for a fair and objective review of his own food? Of course not, so why is Knight so opposed to having someone not appointed by Nike reviewing his factories? The vested financial interests of Nike are certainly integral to his opposition to the University’s decision to join the WRC.
Knight also seems to be upset because he was not consulted in the decision-making process. Our concerns focus on how this situation sets up a slippery slope for interactions with donors in the future. If the University starts to incorporate donors into their decision-making process, where is the line drawn for who has donated enough to have a seat at the table? Does the threat of losing private dollars override the integrity and autonomy of our University community? We have been grateful for Knight’s contributions, including a remodeled library and a new law school; however, if the conditions put upon Knight’s dollars include making him a part of the decision-making process at the University, Knight has unreasonable expectations for the University.
Having corporate interests influencing University leaders through a backdoor process thwarts the inherent independence of any university. We are aware that Knight’s generosity will be missed at the University; however, no single donor should expect to make decisions for an independent institution of higher education. There is nothing philanthropic about asserting a strong corporate influence at our university, which is devoted to independent inquiry and learning. We are proud to be members of a University that believes in shared governance and integrity. The University is lucky to be led by a president with strong ethics. The University cannot bear sole responsibility for the politics of relationships with large donors. That burden must be shared with the legislature, whose budget decisions force educators to become fundraisers. Maybe it’s about time that Oregon’s public universities are adequately supported by public funds.