New Comm Ave

Looking for the latest trend that's sweeping the nation? This proves a simple task when considering high profile and heavily advertised products such as Apple's iPod and UGG Australia's patented sheepskin boots. But aside from these cultural wonders, there remains another type of trend – a trend that causes more harm than good. Across the nation, college students are donning their schools' apparel with pride and spirit. This mass movement effectively grants universities the upper hand in the supply-and-demand curve; as more and more students demand college apparel, schools maintain greater power to supply whatever clothing students are willing to buy. This authoritative power, however, comes along with great responsibility. Universities must be held responsible for ensuring that clothes sporting their logos are not made under the abusive and exploitative conditions which plague the globalized apparel industry.

As evidenced by an increase in college apparel sales over the past five academic years, students have shown an overwhelming demand for their schools' apparel (Kauffman 1). Take a look for yourself. Step onto any given college campus to see the contagious effects fostered by this communal expression of school spirit. Universities purchase about three billion dollars each year in T-shirts, sweatshirts, caps, sneakers, and sports uniforms adorned with their institutions' names and logos (Kauffman 1). Such a financial commitment indicates a general student willingness to wear anything that relates one to his or her respective school.

Brands such as Nike, Champion, Russell Athletic, and Reebok stand at the forefront of companies that colleges turn to for their clothes. This triangular relationship – linking the college, its licensed clothing provider, and consumer – is actually part of a much larger picture, the global apparel market.

The apparel industry is one of the most globalized industries in the world today, as well as the most flawed. Dotting the globe with garment and textile factories, the industry has expanded over the years to point-break. Though the battle for worker's rights and a living wage is not new in America, today's labor movement must deal with a new dimension -- the globalization of the labor force (Bonacich 13).

In the 1930s, the most effective strategy against sweatshops was the organized power of the work force. Between 1930 and 1933, textile and apparel union membership rose from forty-thousand members to over 300,000 members. By the 1960s, more than 1.2 million textile and apparel workers were unionized. The nationalization of the textile and apparel labor union enabled workers to successfully mobilize, strike, and challenge management, eventually leading to the creation of national labor standards (United).

Today, the collective bargaining power of the union is no longer effective. The textile, apparel, and retail complex is engaged in what The Boston Globe recently called a "Darwinian struggle". Dominated by a small number of retailers, textile producers, and apparel manufacturers, the industry is now primarily engaged in a competition that requires reducing the price and expanding the volume of clothing sold to consumers (Pollin). Multi-national corporations scour the earth for the lowest possible wages, leaving hundreds of thousands of American workers without employment and pitted against workers in third world nations, where there are no labor unions, no tariffs, no health and safety regulations, and where basic human rights are ignored.

The Government Accounting Office reported in 1994 that "sweatshop working conditions remain a major problem in the US garment industry, according to the experts contacted. They say working conditions, in many cases, have worsened over the last few years. In general, the description of today's sweatshops differs little from that at the turn of the [20th] century" (Pollin). Regarding developing economies, recent studies sponsored by major U.S. universities as well as a major report issued by the International Labor Office have all found that serious workplace abuses and violations of workers' rights are occurring in the garment industry throughout the world.

In sum, the apparel industry represents both the most advanced arm of globalization and some of its most negative effects. This dual, contradictory role played by trans-national companies (TNCs) reflects the nature of the business. Apparel is typically the entering industry for countries embarking on a program of industrialization, particularly export-led industrialization. Characterized by simple technology – an individual sitting at a sewing machine – and low startup costs, apparel production is the cutting-edge industry in the globalization process. This breakthrough in international trade, however, carries with it lofty expenses. Real wages, the major focus of the anti-sweatshop movement, have actually declined in poor countries. Union organizing drives have been met with greater resistance than ever by factory owners and foreign governments (Rosen 9). With human rights violations ranging from rape to execution, global standards must be enforced by somebody, but who?

Universities often earn a significant amount of money by licensing the name and logo of the university and by selling clothes in their bookstores. Thus, universities need to be aware of the inherent accountability that accompanies this relationship. Colleges must rethink their policies and recognize the clout they bring to the table. With a determined effort by college officials and the continued activism of students alike, universities can show some teeth by refusing to be associated with injustice, following up on the issue which was dealt with ineffectively in the past, and joining the protests, campaigns, and organizations that have brought this injustice out from under the table.

They say a book should never be judged by its cover, but it usually is. Universities must eradicate any ties to the global injustices of the apparel industry if they are to be respected and admired as institutions of the highest integrity. So often, people are identified or labeled by the clothing they wear. Universities must take this into consideration when trying to build a campus community grounded in ideals of intellectual development, academic freedom, and societal justice.

For New York University, their mission statement calls for, among other things, a "vigorous debate on issues that are of vital importance in the arena of international relations and on issues that transcend boundaries and affect the future of humanity" (New York). This mandate exemplifies the university's commitment to not only their own community, but the world community. Such a commitment extends its reach to those workers whose rights are being denied.

For Catholic institutions, this premise takes on even greater importance. According to the mission of Boston College, "As a Catholic and Jesuit university, it is rooted in a world view that encounters God in all creation, and through all human activity." Furthermore, BC commits itself to "the pursuit of a just society through its own accomplishments" (Boston). Here, BC is literally taking up the responsibility of ensuring that its apparel is not produced under sweatshop-like conditions. The next step, after such an ideological ultimatum, is action.

Universities must look no further than the past decade to grasp the scope of opposition to the widespread injustice sweeping the global workplace. In the mid-1990's, after a nearly one hundred-year hiatus, the term 'sweatshop' became a household term again as stories of horrific abuse and exploitation began to emerge from the factories around the globe. From Manhattan's 39th St. to San Pedro Sula, Honduras, workers were beginning to reveal the oppressive, dangerous, and often illegal conditions under which they were working to produce the clothes bearing popular labels like Nike, Kathie Lee, and the Gap. Students around the country realized the crucial role that their universities play in propping up the global sweatshop system, and the potential leverage they had to pressure their administrators to change that system. Students at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Michigan, and University of California-Irvine began to raise questions about their universities' affiliations with Nike, while students at University of Wisconsin-Madison did the same over their university's exclusive contract with Reebok (Collins 36).

Students even challenged the Clinton Administration's Fair Labor Association (FLA). The FLA, a body composed of corporations, originally sought to rid the world of sweatshops by means of "voluntary company monitoring." The FLA was flawed, however, in that it did little to enforce its weak codes of conduct. In response to the FLA's failure, the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC), a non-profit organization made up of university officials, students, and labor experts, was created to not only better enforce codes of conduct for factories, but also to pressure companies to disclose the locations of their factories to the public (United).
Leading up to the turn of the millennium, much had been done to establish the groundwork for fighting sweatshops. This is why universities cannot turn their backs now. So much has already been accomplished. If sweatshops were a concern throughout the 90's, schools can no longer maintain that it is a forgotten or dead issue. Once again, universities must take on this responsibility as institutes of higher education and instruments for global justice.

If universities refuse to acknowledge this storied fight against sweatshops and global injustice, perhaps the recent wave of protests and demonstrations to hit college campuses across the nation will snag their attention. Just a week ago, students at the University of California, Berkeley stripped nude in front of the university chancellor's office in protest of the school's sweatshop-produced apparel. National organizations such as Sweatshop Watch, Jobs With Justice, Behind the Label, and many others have made their way to college campuses, to educate and increase awareness. United Students Against Sweatshops, a particularly influential and widespread anti-sweatshop coalition, is amid a successful campaign which brings garment workers to speak to major universities. These efforts have won the support of many universities, as the WRC has expanded its list of affiliates to 152 (Worker).

Still, universities, despite the continued activism present on and off campus, may view the shift from cheap, sweatshop labor to legitimate, slightly more expensive manufacturers as economically foolish. According to economists and a few startup production projects, however, there are viable alternatives. TeamX, a worker cooperative garment company, posed an economic model that would effectively "undermine the credibility of the sweatshop model by demonstrating that clothing can be produced while treating workers fairly and paying dignified 'living' wages." Relying on minimal increases in retail prices and lower marketing expenses (i.e. the Internet), TeamX has found a feasible solution and is currently manufacturing a range of products that will soon test the market (Rodgers).

Universities may also claim that such alternatives hinge on the hopeless fantasy of an American consumer who is actually willing to pay more. This is a smokescreen, however, for the universities' own greed. Three separate research organizations have conducted surveys on consumer attitudes towards purchasing products made under sweatshop conditions. The surveys consistently found that most consumers have a strong preference to purchase products made under 'good' working conditions as opposed to sweatshop conditions, and are generally willing to pay more to support their preferences. For example, the most recent of these surveys found that on average, consumers said they were willing to pay 28% more on a $10 item and 15% more on a $100 item in support of their preference for products made under good conditions (Pollin). The numbers don't lie. Perhaps universities shouldn't either.

When universities fail to take responsibility for their actions, they are, in fact, lying to their students, faculty, and themselves. Schools can no longer pretend that sweatshops do not exist and that their apparel sales aren't hurting anyone. Human misery is clear for all to see. Now universities must make a stand and help end the destructive nature of the global apparel industry.

• 2007 Spring
• Research