Article By Becky Adams
Kent State University has had its share of ugliness. Many have heard about the
violence and tragedy that carved out May 4, historically, as a day of infamy. Every year we are reminded,
and rightly so, of the evil that occurred on this campus. But exactly 31 years later, May 4, 2001, was for
many a day brimming with celebration and shouts of victory. It is vital we remember this moment as well.
A day of long-awaited justice had arrived.
It was on that day that KSU took a gigantic step forward in
becoming a "sweat-free" campus, a campus that no longer supported the oppression of workers
or encouraged the perpetuation of sweatshops.
Months of passionate protesting, researching,
negotiating, and campaigning by a variety of concerned students and others had paid off. Voices had begun
to grow hoarse when a code of conduct was finally created and adopted by the university in the spring of
2001. It would be sent out to all vendors or licensees manufacturing products with the university’s
logo, and was to be signed and adhered to. A monitoring company, the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC),
was hired to enforce the code through inspections and reports of the licensee factories.
The code
"adds Kent State’s voice, along with other universities, to the message which keeps getting
louder and stronger," University Counsel James Watson stated in an article that appeared in the Daily
Kent Stater May 4, 2001. "We’re not going to permit names of great universities to be put on
clothing made under unfit working conditions."
The code outlines the university’s stance
on issues such as wages and benefits, working hours and overtime, child labor, forced labor, health and
safety, women’s rights and more. The code states that "KSU will select and maintain only
those licensees who will conduct their business in a manner consistent with KSU’s Code of Conduct
and will commit to the Code. This Code is intended as an instrument for productive change… ."
Let’s step back a moment from the happy ending of this story to better understand what led to the
victory. There are lessons inherent in the story of those who pushed for this change. The student group
CHANGE, Coalition for a Humane and New Global Economy, is at the roots of the campaign.
The Kent State code of conduct
and a list of all our vendors
are available online at
www.kent.edu/universitycounsel/vcc.cfm.
Important things to note
about the code:
•
Under the Verification section,
it states that "KSU will conduct
an annual review of the compliance
reports by the Licensees, and will
also publicize a summary of this
review to the University community.
•"KSU shall annually review
this Code and the effectiveness of compliance
monitoring efforts. A review committee made
up of an equal number of students and
faculty/staff shall be convened by
the Coordinator of Licensing (James Watson)."
During the fall semester of 2000, students from KSU Professor Patrick Coy’s "Nonviolence:
Theory and Practice" class were challenged to pick an issue involving violence, relate it to the
campus, and find a way to solve it. A handful of ambitious students, later the founders of CHANGE,
decided to tackle the sweatshop issue. They sought to bring awareness to the fact that KSU was a buyer of
sweatshop "goods" and to eventually pressure the administration into creating a code of
conduct that would ensure KSU logo products were being made fairly.
When the students initially
approached the university on the topic, they were surprised to discover the administration had already
launched a three-phase plan to look into the issue.
A committee of three faculty members, headed by
Watson, had developed during the fall of 2000. After attending a conference held by the Fair Labor
Association and the WRC, Watson said, he felt it was time for the university to take a serious look into
these issues as other universities had been doing. The focus of this first phase was to accomplish some
initial research on the issue.
The purposes of the second and third phases included the formation of
another committee, this time involving faculty and students. Together they would research how to create a
code, then embark on its creation, get it approved by KSU President Carol Cartwright, and choose a
monitoring company to enforce it.
"It frustrated their (CHANGE’s) plan that the
university had already started a process," Watson said.
Mike Pesa, a member of CHANGE, said
it was actually an opportune time for the campaign, since the administration was already looking into these
issues. CHANGE was eager to work with the administration, but strongly desired more student
involvement in the process to make it more democratic.
"We wanted to make sure they were
taking action," Pesa said. "They didn’t keep us in the loop as much as they said they
would."
In order to stay informed, CHANGE developed a strategy. The members of CHANGE
divided their forces, Pesa explained. About half were appointed the sole responsibility of working on day-
to-day discussion with Watson and the rest of the administration. The remaining members focused on
organizing demonstrations and writing articles to the Kent Stater.
"We put this issue in the
public spotlight," Pesa said. "By the end of the semester, CHANGE would be mentioned in
over 11 news articles."
By mid-March, CHANGE and other campaign supporters encountered
delays on the part of the administration. The second committee had yet to be formed, and deadlines
originally agreed on were being pushed back. CHANGE desperately wanted to get the code accomplished
before the end of the spring semester, because summer was viewed as the great killer of all progressive
projects.
In order to increase pressure on the administration and gain more student support,
"CHANGE members and supporters occupied the student center plaza, tying themselves to light
poles with red tape to symbolize the bureaucratic ’red tape’ that was holding back the
campaign," Pesa wrote on CHANGE’s Web site,
http://dept.kent.edu/stuorg/change/pcsweat.htm. "They passed out flyers explaining why they were
protesting, and filled up more petitions."
The message was clear. "You’re taking
too long," Pesa wrote. "People are suffering right now, real people. They can’t just wait
for another committee to plan for yet another committee… ."
Watson said he recognized the
reasons behind the students’ frustration. "It’s a committee," he said.
"We’re in a bureaucracy, and it’s kinda slow." He said he felt the "red
tape" demonstration wasn’t effective aside from getting the attention of more students.
CHANGE would disagree. Shortly after, the university agreed to begin creating the second committee.
By May 4, 2001, the second committee had accomplished its task. We’ve thus returned to the
happy ending of our story, but there’s much more to the tale. CHANGE and supporters of this
campaign worked diligently in a variety of ways, including workshops, petitions, a sweatshop fashion
show, the Labor Days of Action week, rallies, and many other small actions with huge results, to get to this
point.
It is important that we not forget the efforts of those who have come before us, but where do we
go from here? Over three years have passed; are the accomplishments of this campaign still intact?
"The code is in good shape, it does what it needs to do," James Watson recently said. He did
note, however, that the code has gone through some changes. It was amended to include athletic uniforms,
and employee uniforms to an extent. The code currently states, "This Code shall apply to all licensees
of Kent State University as well as the suppliers of employee uniforms acquired through competitive bids
and athletic uniforms."
Right now, employee uniforms are not being acquired through
competitive bids, but are rented from two or three companies that are not necessarily under the code of
conduct, Watson said. A competitive bid market occurs when the university has a bulk order of uniforms to
process and many manufacturers who are competing for the business; meaning the university is more easily
able to negotiate or choose the manufacturer who will adhere to a code of conduct. Currently, KSU is only
renting about 12 uniforms a week from each of these companies, so the manufacturers are not willing to
adhere to a code of conduct, Watson explained.
Watson affirmed that the university remains a
member of the WRC, the monitoring company. The university also hired a licensing company, the
Licensing Resource Group, Nov. 14, 2001. It manages Kent State’s licensing issues and decides
which factories get permission to produce trademark items. Watson said it also makes sure manufacturers
are made aware of the code and have agreed to comply with it. It sends people to other countries to inspect
factories and to meet with workers and management, as well.
"Be aware," Watson
advised students who want to watchdog this issue. "If you see in the news there are factories in India
with a reputation of abuse, or find out information from nongovernmental organizations concerning one of
our licensees … pop on my link and send me an e-mail."
Watson said the annual review
committees have occurred since the implementation of the code. If students are interested in being involved
with this committee they are encouraged to e-mail him.
Pesa said the fact that KSU has a code is a
great first step -- but just a step. Students need to hold the university accountable.
"The code
wasn’t instituted without activism and it won’t be enforced down the road without
activism," Pesa said.
We can take small steps today to ensure the good work that’s been
accomplished will not be lost. By educating, spreading awareness, and taking creative action on these
issues we as students can continue to walk in the direction of positive social change. We must not stagnate
when it comes to issues of justice.