Document Links

	No-Sweat Coordination Sites: •No-Sweat Coalition •Amnesty at UR Final Documents: •President Jackson's Final Report •Final Committee Recommendations •Minority Report Letters: •May 1 Response to President Jackson's Letter •September 28 Letter to President Jackson •April 3 Letter to Administration and Amnesty International •March 28 Letter to the University Deans •March 20 Letter to the University Community Meeting Minutes: •April 21 •April 14 •April 10

Off-Campus Resources

	www.workersrights.org www.fairlabor.org www.nlcnet.org www.usasnet.org www.sweatshopwatch.org www.uniteunion.org dolphin.upenn.edu/~psas/ www.umich.edu/~sole/

[an error occurred while processing this directive] Upcoming Meetings [an error occurred while processing this directive] The Senate and Cabinet are now on their regular meeting schedules. Take a look at the Senate Committees and get involved.

May 1, 2001 response to President Jackson's Letter

September 28, 2000 to President Jackson

September 28, 2000 Dear President Jackson, We, the members of Amnesty International, would like to express our concern regarding the University Apparel Manufacturing Committee. The committee is now in its fifth month of investigation and rapidly approaching its recommendation deadline of November 1st. Since the committee's first meeting in April, there has been insufficient progress toward making its proposal. As stated in your March 28th letter, this committee was designed "in the spirit of moving this issue along in a productive and rapid fashion." However, the committee has not proceeded in a timely or effective manner, and this is inconsistent with the declared objective. We are extremely concerned with the lack of an alumni representative, with the poor attendance record, and with the committee's poor communication to the university community. The absence of a clear focus and timetable by which the committee operates is a fundamental problem and must be addressed in order for the committee to provide an informed and thoughtful recommendation. It is imperative to address these concerns immediately. In order for the committee to become productive and progressive, the following actions must be taken: 1. Selection of an alumni representative, 2. Full attendance and participation by all members of the committee, 3. Posting of committee meeting minutes in an accessible and publicized location, 4. Release of a timetable, including an agenda for the remaining committee meetings. It is crucial that these items be addressed in the form of a plan to be released by Wednesday, October 4th, and to be implemented before the committee meeting on Friday, October 13th. Additionally, we would like to express our discontent with the timing of your response to be "within three weeks of [the] issuance" of the committee's report. Three weeks following the committee recommendation date is November 22nd; this marks the start of Thanksgiving break. The university community should have more time before the holiday break to receive and consider to your decision. Two weeks is a more appropriate amount of time to formulate and release a response to the committee's recommendation. This committee has been allotted months to research, discuss, and debate the issue. The university community deserves a public release of your response by November 15th. With the goal of bringing transparency to this issue and improving conditions for workers who produce the apparel that bears the University of Rochester logo, the student voice is essential. The university community can contribute to an effective improvement of working conditions by joining an organization that has student involvement as a priority. We hope that the administration, committee, and the university community can cooperatively improve this process. Sincerely, Amnesty International Vaidya Gullapalli, President Emily Piltch, No-Sweat Coordinator Anne Lyster, Business Manager Sarah Clock, Secretary Erin McCrossan, Educational Chair

April 3, 2000 to Administration and Amnesty International

To: Thomas Jackson, President Paul Burgett, Vice President and University Dean of Students Mary-Beth Cooper, Associate Vice President and River Campus Dean of Students University of Rochester Amnesty International and the Anti-sweatshop coalition: From: Students' Association Government It has been clearly shown that the issue of sweatshop labor and the role it plays in the production of apparel bearing the University logo is a complex one. Although this is an issue with many intricacies, it is one that deserves the full and serious attention of both the University community as a whole and the administrators of this institution. The University insignia is representative of the University community and more specifically the student body. Members of this community have given the University of Rochester a distinguished reputation; everything that can be done to uphold this reputation and to continue the University's traditions of education and open discourse should be done. The University's commitment to the ideals upon which it was founded should be demonstrated not only through everything that bears its motto "Meliora", but also in the production of the clothing that bears them. With this in mind, we the Students Association Senate would like to commend the members of Amnesty International and the University's student initiated anti-sweatshop coalition. They have spent a great deal of time and put much effort into researching the topic and educating themselves and the University community regarding the issue. Their fight for issues such as full public disclosure, living wages, reasonable working hours, the right to organize and collectively bargain, protection of health and safety, compliance with local laws, protection of women's rights, freedom from harassment in the workplace, prohibition of child labor, forced labor, and forced overtime, as well as a mechanism with which to enforce these ideals, is one which we encourage them to continue. Furthermore, we support their efforts to convince the University to obtain knowledge of the conditions under which University's is apparel is manufactured. In order to properly represent the University, its students, its ideals and its reputation, obtaining this knowledge and taking a proactive stance is the necessary first step in addressing the issue. In response to the demands of these groups, the administration has also dedicated itself to furthering its knowledge on the topic and taking a proactive stance. In order to do so, the University will be forming a committee to research the issue. This committee will convene for the first time the week of Monday, April 10th, and consist of three students, three faculty, two administrators and one ex-officio member of Amnesty International. The administration will also bring representatives from the FLA and WRC to discuss the ramifications of signing on with either. These representatives will be brought o a meeting of the committee which will be open to the public before the end of the school year. Preliminary findings of the committee will be released to the public by the Board of Trustee's meeting in May and a decision regarding the University's action regarding the issue will be made by the 21st of November. Upon the 100th anniversary of co-education and the sesquicentennial celebration of the University, it is important that the University show that it is prepared to take a proactive stance. Furthermore, in a matter in which the University is pursuing the implementation of its ideals, the process that decides the proper course of action must itself be proper and just. With this letter, the members of the Students' Association Government will take their role in this dialogue by assuring that the University takes the appropriate steps in addressing this issue. It is our responsibility, as representatives of the entire student body, to make sure that our voice as students is heard in this process, that a reasonable time schedule is maintained, and that all other aforementioned acts are taken by the administration. We are pleased to see that the University has laid out a plan of action to address this important issue, and hope that the members of the anti-sweatshop coalition will be willing to participate. We also feel that time is key in addressing this issue, and therefore hope that both parties will keep that in mind as they deal with it, allowing Amnesty International more opportunities to properly educate the University, and the administration the time needed to properly represent it. This effort to bring the administration and the students representing Amnesty International together on the same page will surely lead to an amicable solution to this matter. [signed] Christopher C. Sabis Speaker, Students' Association Senate [signed] Scott Jennings Students' Association President

March 28, 2000 to University Deans

March 28, 2000 TO: Deans Chiverton, Goldsmith, Green, LeBlanc, Parker, Plosser, Undercofler, and Wexler FROM: Thomas H. Jackson RE: Committee to Study University's Position on Apparel Manufacturing Vice President Paul Burgett and I met yesterday afternoon with two students from the campus chapter of Amnesty International. The discussion was candid and cordial. While there are unquestionably differences of opinion and view on a number of issues, it is also my sense that the students understood the importance of the University's process and the need for deliberative discussion on this issue, as well as the necessity of involving individuals beyond Amnesty International and the Office of the President. They, in turn, emphasized their concern with the size, composition, and schedule for the committee, as described in my March 20th memo, to study and make recommendations on this issue. The students proposed a smaller committee, composed of three students, two faculty members, two administrators, two staff, and one alumnus/a. Their suggestion was that the committee be appointed, in some fashion, jointly by me and by them. While this is not, and cannot become, a bilateral negotiation, particularly in the area of fundamental university values, there are substantial elements of this suggestion that I can agree to, in the spirit of moving this issue along in a productive and rapid fashion without compromise of those core university values of discussion and dissent. While I cannot agree that an advocacy group committed to one outcome should have joint responsibility over the composition of a committee designed to hear and incorporate various University constituencies, I can agree with the spirit of a number of their suggestions. Accordingly, I am recommending the following membership, with (as before) Dean Mary-Beth Cooper as chair: Students: Three students. One member of the Student Association President's Cabinet, appointed by the SA President in consultation with Vice President Burgett; one member of the College's Student Senate, appointed by the Speaker, in consultation with Vice President Burgett; and one chosen in a random fashion by Vice President Burgett from students nominated, in accordance with my March 20th memo, from other student governance bodies throughout the University. Faculty: Three faculty. One member of the University-wide Faculty Senate, appointed by the Chair of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee; one member of the Faculty Council of the College, appointed by the Chair of that Council; and one appointed by the Provost of the University. Administration/Staff: Two individuals: Dean Mary-Beth Cooper and Purchasing Director Quentin Roach. Alumni: One Rochester-area alumnus/a, appointed by the Chair of the Trustees' Council of the College in consultation with Dean of the College Faculty Thomas LeBlanc. As before, with our mutual interests to maintain an open process of deliberation and discussion, a member of Amnesty International will be an ex officio member of the committee, without a vote but with the right to attend all committee meetings. Other details of the committee's processes, including the form and forum for meetings, should be decided by the committee itself at its inaugural meeting and announced to the community generally following that meeting. The committee should make a recommendation to me in as timely a fashion as is appropriate, given the University's paramount value placed on reasoned discussions and decisions but no later than November 1st. I will provide a written response to the committee's report within three weeks of its issuance. I hope and expect that the committee will thoroughly educate itself--and the greater campus community--on the issues underlying consideration of affiliating with any organization taking positions on or setting standards for manufacture apparel in countries abroad. I expect that will include invitations to a series of guests (which my office will fund), including the Workers' Rights Consortium and Fair Labor Association, as well as groups representing alternate points of view, to present their thoughts under committee auspices.

March 28, 2000 to the University Community

March 20, 2000 To: University Community From: Thomas H. Jackson Re: The University and Apparel Manufacturing I recently received a letter from several members of the University of Rochester Amnesty International chapter, requesting that the University join, by April 1st, a group known as the Workers' Rights Consortium (WRC), concerned about and monitoring workers' rights in connection with the manufacturing of apparel that bears the logos of colleges and universities throughout the country. The concern is that apparel manufacturers, with plants outside of the United States, and often in third-world countries, are mistreating the workers of those countries in the manufacture of apparel that bears the logo of a higher educational institution (and for which a number of those institutions receive royalties). Attached to the letter is a petition asking the University to disassociate itself from "sweatshop labor." Associate Dean Mary-Beth Cooper and Purchasing Director Quentin Roach met with several signers of the letter to explore with them in greater detail their concerns and Vice President Paul Burgett has met with them at length as well. While their beliefs are obviously heartfelt and important, I do not believe their timetable is appropriate. Approximately a year ago, when this movement began, a monitoring group, known as the Fair Labor Association (FLA), was formed, receiving the endorsement of the American Council on Education. To date, well over 100 colleges and universities have joined the FLA, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, and Columbia. Recently, the FLA has come under attack as not likely to be as protective of workers' rights as critics believe necessary, and the advocates of this position, such as the authors of the letter I recently received, have proffered the WRC as the appropriate alternative on a number of college campuses. The FLA has some vigorous advocates as well, and a number of institutions – including Stanford, Chicago, Williams, and Rochester – have not yet joined either the FLA or the WRC. The WRC will have its "founding conference" on April 7th, at which a charter is expected to be adopted and a governing board created. Although I understand the passions of those advocating that Rochester join the WRC, I do not believe the April 1st deadline is a date of such significance that we need to rush to action. At bottom, the reason for the "deadline" principally comes to this: The advocates, here and elsewhere, want "members" for the WRC prior to its April 7th inaugural meeting. But this passion to join the WRC comes before its major policy decisions – such as board composition or charter – are firmly known. And of course it will remain entirely possible to join the WRC after April 7th, as these details become known and after further reflection on the issues. Given that lack of a pressing temporal urgency of true substance, and given the fluid nature of the WRC itself as I write, I believe it is essential to be true to our fundamental principle and tradition of examination and discussion before action. A university community, first and foremost, should be a community that does not rush to judgment without consideration of all the ramifications of its actions, particularly where the actions do not lie at the heart of the academic mission of the institution. Let me explain a bit more fully why I do not believe the issue has been adequately discussed on campus, nor is "easy" enough to justify action to be taken before reflection. In my view – although I acknowledge that my voice here is only one of many – the issues of whether workers in third-world countries are better or worse off because of jobs that would not pass standards of developed countries such as the United States, are not within the particular competence of academic administrators to decide. (Nor is the issue of whether the condition of those third-world workers rises to the relevance of jobs or security for workers in this country.) These issues, in my view, are much better left to political decision making, or to the forces of the market (including boycotts by interested individuals), than to actions by academic institutions, unless and until they affect "core" academic missions. The wisdom of the University of Chicago's 1967 Kalven Committee still holds true: a university "is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness." Too, the detailed current "requirements" (noting that some of them may still change) of the WRC reflect current standards in this country (even then, some of them recent and hard-fought); their blanket application to literally hundreds of other countries has potentially breathtaking ramifications, including political ones, that surely are not limited to the offshore manufacture of items of apparel. Reasons such as these have led recent institutions that have indicated a willingness to "join" the WRC, to do so conditionally, seeking change from within, and have led them to note "[v]irtually every commentator admits that there is no immediate solution to the longstanding labor problems spanning continents and cultures" (President Lee Bollinger of the University of Michigan). Moreover, despite the appeal of this issue on campuses where the institution derives substantial income from royalties for allowing their logos to be used on apparel, the issue is distinct for Rochester, which does not charge manufacturers for logo use on merchandise sold on campus. I note these issues not to decide them, but to suggest that it is incumbent on us to recognize their existence before we face a decision as to whether – and on what terms – to join either the WRC or the FLA. This is particularly so when the terms of what it means to "belong" to either organization is so evidently fluid. Again, because I do not believe the case for action by April 1st is compelled by matters of true substance – although I do understand the desire, and need, for a University decision on this in due course – I am asking a committee of representative University constituencies to be formed to study this issue. The issue clearly involves students, as well as others in our community, and it involves University-wide policy; the committee should reflect this broad involvement. Thus, the committee will be composed as follows: (1) from each school, one student representative from an elected student governance body; (2) the chair of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (or his designee) and, from each school, one faculty representative from the elected faculty governance body of that school or, absent such a governance body, one faculty representative appointed by the Dean of the school; and (3) Vice President Paul Burgett, Associate Vice President Mary Beth Cooper, Dean William Scott Green, and Purchasing Director Quentin Roach. A student representing the Rochester chapter of Amnesty International shall serve as a non-voting ex officio member of this committee. While I hope this committee, which I am asking Mary-Beth Cooper to chair, can begin its work immediately, I am also cognizant of the calendar, and do not insist that it complete its deliberations this semester (although it might). I will ask this committee to provide me, and perhaps ultimately the Trustees, however, with a recommendation as to the appropriate University course, not later than the end of the upcoming fall semester.