MEMORANDUM

To: University Community

From: Thomas H. Jackson

I endorse the recommendations of the majority of the University Manufacturing Apparel Committee, which have two parts. The first recommendation is "that the University join neither the FLA, the WRC nor any other monitoring organization at this time." The second recommendation is that there be "continuing vigilance and study, recognizing that new information may or may not bring a different outcome." I would like to ask that the current committee meet at least twice during the remainder of this academic year for that purpose.

As reflected by the majority and minority report of the Committee, as well as by the divergent actions of other colleges and universities, this issue can raise deep, and difficult, policy issues. It is not expected that easy common ground can be found–or taken. In light of that, I particularly appreciate the obvious mode of careful study and debate that all members of the Committee engaged in, rising above the passions of the issues to reflect the best of our academic heritage.

There are three levels of disagreements about the appropriate action to take that have surfaced in discussions in campuses across the country, and that are reflected in the Committee’s majority and minority reports as well. The first, and logically dominant, disagreement is over the issue, in the words of the Committee’s majority report, of "[w]hether the actions of [monitoring] organizations may have a negative effect on the factory workers . . . ." The second issue, which one would logically reach only if one concluded that joining a monitoring organization would have a positive effect on conditions abroad is whether it would be appropriate for a university to join such an organization. Third, in this case, where there are two monitoring organizations, the question would be whether the Fair Labor Association (FLA) or the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) is superior, or whether joining both is the appropriate course of action.

The Committee’s recommendations deal principally with the first issue. It does not side with one group or another in answering the question of whether the monitoring organizations help or hurt the (largely third world) factory workers, but views the current vigor, and unsettled nature, of that debate–which is reflected within the faculty as well–as sufficient reason not to join a monitoring organization at this time. Especially given the continuing academic debate, the University must hesitate before making its own pronouncements in areas not directly related to running of the institution that might seem to chill that campus discussion. As Professor Stanley Engerman, a Committee member, wrote:

My opinion is that the most desirable way for the University to meet its educational and moral responsibilities is to provide for the open and unrestricted presentation of the broadest spectrum of opinions on specific issues; then students, faculty, administrators and staff can make their own informed judgments about their preferred means of allocating their time, effort, and money. This would permit each individual to be as concerned as they wish to be, and with whatever groups they may wish. While there are, of course, certain unusual circumstances which may point to a different role for the University, I did not feel that the present issue requires the University involvement with any organization.

I do want to make one "contextual" comment, raised by the authors of the Committee’s minority report. Arguing that "University monitoring has quickly become standard operating procedure," this report suggests that "a deliberate decision by the University of Rochester to refrain from participation will set it apart from its peers." While we ultimately should have the courage of our own convictions and traditions to do what we believe is appropriate for the University of Rochester, the actions of peer institutions are indeed appropriate reference points. And while our peer institutions diverge substantially in their resolution of the basic issue posed to the Committee, I should note that, of the 35 private universities on US News’ "top 50," 17 at this point belong neither to the WRC nor to the FLA, and only two have embraced the outcome of joining the WRC alone recommended by the Committee’s minority members. Thus, I do not agree that our position is unrepresentative of that taken by our peers.

As stipulated in your March 28 statement to the University of Rochester community, the University Apparel Manufacturing Committee soon formed to deliberate the issue of affiliation with organizations that aim to monitor conditions in apparel manufacturing, in particular collegiate apparel bearing the university logo. From April 10 through October 26 the committee met thirteen times, entertained four guest speakers on apparel manufacturing and monitoring, reviewed numerous documents, and discussed the issues most relevant to the questions at hand. In accord with your request, the committee kept its process of self-education and deliberation open, inviting the campus community to attend the presentations by visitors and opening most committee meetings.

As the Kalven Report indicates, the university is primarily an academic institution committed to research, scholarship, and service of its community members engaged in the pursuit of knowledge. But the Apparel Committee generally agreed that in some circumstances it is appropriate for universities to consider taking political and social actions, particularly when the University is acting 'as an institution in its corporate capacity . . . such as university ownership of property, its receipt of funds, its awarding of honors, its membership in other organizations'. Hence we proceeded to study more closely the particular action we might take in this instance.

Several key questions emerged during the investigative process. First, what were the aims of organizations such as the FLA and WRC? Second, what might be some of the unintended consequences of the methods they employed to achieve these aims? Third, how feasible was it to achieve certain of these aims, such as establishing a workable definition of a living wage? Fourth, what was the appropriate venue for disclosing factory locations and any violations discovered by a monitoring agency? Finally, what place should universities have in monitoring the conditions under which the apparel they license is produced?

Your March 28 statement also requested that we gather relevant information on the university's licensing policies. The university contracts with Barnes & Noble College Bookstore, Inc., to operate and provide services for the bookstore on the university campuses. Under this agreement, the university grants Barnes & Noble a royalty-free license to sell bookstore items including, but not limited to, "...clothing, including any and all such items bearing the University of Rochester emblem, logo, insignia or other identifying mark." Barnes & Noble College Bookstore, Inc., is a privately owned company that adopted the FLA's Fair Labor Code of conduct in August 1998, and has required all its vendors to "certify" that they adhere to it since September 1999. That is to say, although B & N, Inc., is a member of neither the FLA nor the WRC, all of B&N's suppliers have been required to sign the FLA code of conduct or lose their business opportunity with the company.

After careful review and consideration, the committee voted on the action it would recommend for the University. A majority of the committee recommends that the University join neither the FLA, the WRC nor any other monitoring organization at this time. Whether the actions of these organizations may have a negative effect on the factory workers is still debatable, and, until this question is more adequately answered, we concluded that joining is not the appropriate choice for the University of Rochester.

We do recommend continuing vigilance and study, recognizing that new information may or may not bring a different outcome. We welcome your questions and comments regarding our work and look forward to your thoughts for the University community.

Voting in the Majority:
Mary-Beth Cooper, River Campus Dean of Students, Chair of the Committee
Morris Eaves, Faculty Council [of the College]
Stanley Engerman, Representing the Provost
Michael Hogan, Alumni Association Representative
Ganapathy Rama Iyer, William E. Simon Graduate School of Business, representing other students
Quentin Roach, Director - Purchasing and Auxiliary Operations

Voting in the Minority:
Ashley Conner, Students' Association President's Representative
Thomas Gibson, University Faculty Senate
Shawn Goldman, Students' Association Senate