Still Made in Sweatshops

Even Harvard students who do not consider themselves particularly liberal would generally agree that sweatshop labor is objectionable. After all, these factories pay their workers pennies per hour to work shifts of 12 hours or more at a time, under the most dehumanizing conditions. Their health and safety are jeopardized in various ways, ranging from being denied bathroom breaks to having to work with dangerous tools and chemicals. Unionizing is forbidden. Over 90 percent of the workers are women, who are often subjected to sexual harassment or abuse. Clearly, these conditions are appalling, and cannot be justified by any means.

And yet Harvard continues to manufacture its official university apparel in such sweatshops. The 1999-2000 Independent University Initiative (IUI), commissioned by the Harvard administration itself, confirmed this to be true. Harvard commissions apparel from companies that violate wage laws, discriminate against women, expose workers to dangerous chemicals and unsafe machinery, and deny them freedom of association—all with the full knowledge of the administration.

Despite calls from students and the recommendation of a high-level administrator, Harvard has yet to take meaningful action towards ending these outrages. Harvard did, however, take action to quell the outcry against sweatshop labor in the late 1990s. Along with some of the companies best known for their unfair labor practices, including Nike, Reebok and Liz Claiborne, Harvard helped form the Fair Labor Association (FLA), a group that ostensibly monitors the working conditions in factories. Yet this corporate-dominated organization does nothing to ensure fair labor practices. It relies heavily on for-profit monitoring and has no requirement for the inclusion of workers or worker-allied organizations in the monitoring process. Most importantly, its governing board is dominated by the companies who have it in their best interest to continue to use sweatshop labor. Indeed, the 175 member colleges and universities share a single seat on the board, while each of the corporations on the board gets its own seat. Many NGOs and universities actually committed to fair labor practices dropped out of the FLA, and for good reason: can anyone really trust these companies to hold themselves to ethical standards given their track records? And as to the FLA’s track record, they have yet to produce a single public report on any of their activities except in situations in factories already highly publicized by other advocacy groups—cases in which the FLA would have lost any last shred of credibility had they not produced a statement. Clearly, FLA membership cannot be considered a sufficient step towards ending the use of sweatshop labor to manufacture Harvard products.

On the other hand, the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) is a non-profit group that actually monitors factories to ensure fair pay and decent working conditions. Investigations are done by trained representatives from human rights organizations, and all results are fully disclosed. It is also the only monitoring organization endorsed by local unions and worker advocacy groups, those who actually have workers’ interests at heart. Already the WRC has made significant gains, for example at the Kukdong factory in Puebla, Mexico; the WRC there gained recognition from Nike for an independent worker-organized union, the first of its kind in a Mexican textile factory. The WRC worked with Nike to keep the factory open and to improve working conditions, contrary to fears that an organization such as the WRC would cause companies to shut down factories and pull out of countries to avoid making changes.

This is the organization that any institution of conscience, especially one so much in the public eye as Harvard, should join. Over 100 schools nationwide are already members of the WRC, including Brown, Columbia, and Cornell. What is Harvard waiting for?

The general counsel to University President Lawrence H. Summers recommended last year that Harvard join the WRC, according to an administrative source. Two years ago, the Undergraduate Council and the Crimson Staff recommended Harvard join the WRC and give the FLA the boot. In November 2000, Allan A. Ryan Jr., then the University attorney, told The Crimson, in comparing the FLA and the WRC, “The WRC is at this point not as advanced…If things move along, we won’t rule out looking to join.” This objection is no longer valid. The WRC, in its relatively short history, has seen great success and progress; the FLA, behind which the University continues to hide, has seen none. It is indisputable that Harvard apparel is being made under horrendous working conditions, and WRC membership is the first step that the University must take to combat this situation. Summers and the members of the Harvard community, including students who buy and wear Harvard apparel, cannot in good faith allow these conditions to continue. Harvard has the ability to do its part in the battle to end sweatshop labor; the only question remains, why haven’t we already?

Jessica Marglin ’06 lives in Canaday Hall. Katie Monticchio ’06 lives in Weld Hall. They are members of Harvard Students Against Sweatshops.