For the past seven years, I have chaired Purdue's Merchandise, Licensing and Marketing Policy Committee, which voted on November 15 to recommend that the university not participate in the Worker Rights Consortium's Designated Supplier Program (DSP).

Following the committee's action, student members of the Purdue Organization for Labor Equality began a hunger strike with the objective of persuading the university to adopt the DSP, despite the committee's recommendation.

While I respect the right of the POLE members to express their view in this way, I believe it is important for the Purdue community to understand that the committee came to its decision with great care and with full consideration of the views of POLE. The merchandise committee is composed of students, faculty and staff with a great deal of knowledge and experience in the complex global market that produces most of the clothing Americans wear. The committee includes a POLE member, the president of Purdue Student Government, three faculty members and two administrators who work daily on contract issues that relate to licensing.

After discussion at the November 15 meeting, the committee voted 4-2 against Purdue's joining the DSP. The POLE representative and one faculty member dissented, and their minority report was included with the committee recommendation and other materials sent to President Martin Jischke on November 27.

The global apparel industry is built around cheap labor markets in more than 75 nations throughout the world. Conditions in many of the thousands of factories that make clothing are abominable by American standards. Yet the jobs represent economic opportunity for people in nations where poverty and human rights abuses are the norm.

Purdue became a member of the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) and the Fair Labor Association (FLA) because these organizations are committed to working with the apparel industry, governments and social organizations to monitor and improve working conditions. Part of their commitment is to help enforce the codes of conduct Purdue and other universities have adopted for their licensees.

Although conditions in clothing factories in many countries certainly are poor by our standards and abuses continue, the WRC and FLA efforts have made some progress, and major licensees have been responsive. In November, Nike stopped doing business with its primary supplier of soccer balls, citing labor abuses in its Pakistan factory.

The manufacture of American universities' licensed apparel is a tiny fraction of the clothing industry, and our ability to influence conditions in factories around the world is limited. The WRC — in what I believe is a sincere attempt to leverage the universities' influence — developed the DSP. Institutions that adopt the program would allow products with their logos to be manufactured only in factories approved by the WRC. These factories would have to agree to certain conditions, including payment of a living wage, as determined by the WRC, and to not oppose the establishment of unions. The licensees that buy from these factories also would be required to meet certain conditions, including paying a price for products that allows the factories to pay a living wage.

These sound like noble concepts, but the committee recognized that they are not consistent with the way Purdue and others do business. Neither federal nor Indiana law provides for or defines a living wage, and American companies are not prohibited from opposing the establishment of unions — in fact, many actively oppose such organization. Likewise, price setting as required by the DSP is not something Purdue would practice in any of its business operations.

Most committee members were in agreement that setting up a different set of standards for one area of university business would be a bad decision. They also concluded that the WRC's plan for implementing the DSP is very complex and simply unworkable. There also is sincere doubt about the consequences of the DSP. Some committee members believe it would limit opportunity and create worse conditions for some workers.

I know each of the committee's members to be personally committed to doing everything possible to assure that Purdue licensed apparel is manufactured in conditions that treat workers fairly. The majority decision not to recommend adopting the DSP is not an indication of lack of concern for the plight of workers in poor nations. It is a recognition that the problem is vastly complex, and it represents a conclusion that the DSP is not the right solution.

Purdue remains committed to its code of conduct and will continue to work to enforce it, but the university should not make a decision to adopt a program that would combine poor business practices with a limited chance of success.

I hope the individuals engaged in the hunger strike will recognize before doing harm to themselves that they should continue to work through university channels to find solutions to this difficult and frustrating problem. We are all agreed on the humanitarian objectives. We should not allow disagreement on tactics to keep us from working together to find a solution.

To the News Service home page