In this month’s issue of Labor Notes, UM alum and former Michigan Independent writer Paul Abowd reports on the organizing efforts of labor and anti-sweatshop activists at the University of North Carolina (UNC). For years, the campus group Student Action with Workers (SAW) has been pushing UNC’s administration to stop purchasing university apparel from sweatshops. This past April, SAW held a 16 day sit-in inside the University’s admin building. SAW wants UNC to adopt the Designated Suppliers Program (DSP)—an agreement and plan that would commit the University to producing its apparel in factories with sweatfree conditions. Though explanations of the DSP can get convoluted, Abowd gives a thorough and accessible explanation.

An extended version of the article can be found on Abowd’s blog.

If UNC’s story sounds familiar, this is because labor activists here at the University of Michigan and SAW share the same struggle. Both are still waiting for their administration to act responsibly by taking action against sweatshop-produced University apparel. Just more than two years ago, Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality (SOLE) and the Sweatfree Coalition staged a sit-in in the Fleming Administration Building in effort to get University President Mary Sue Coleman to pass the DSP. (The University still has not adopted the DSP)

If you are looking for a refresher, go here for the Michigan Daily’s coverage of the sit-in.

I also covered the sit-in for the Independent back in April 2007, it is below:

Why did the Sweatfree Coalition sit-in?

They call themselves ‘the dirty dozen’; some people refer to them as ‘dirty hippies’ or ‘those kids who got arrested’. Responsible for the occupation of President Mary-Sue Coleman’s office on Tuesday April 3^rd, the Sweatfree Coalition has proven to be an influential force, sparking dialogue and amassing wide support across campus from students and faculty, and across labor movements nationwide.

The Sweatfree Coalition, initiated by Students Organizing for Labor Economic Equality (SOLE), is comprised of various campus groups and interested individuals. Whether you call them hippies, activists or rebels, a one-word label may too easily glance over the group’s diverse membership. The Coalition is made-up of individuals also active in student government, religious groups, racial equality movements, the TLGBQ (Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Queer) community, the anti-war movement, and individuals who have just taken a recent interest in student activism.

Brought together by the sweatfree cause, the students aim to ensure that the University of Michigan maintains its dignity and reputation by following its own Code of Conduct on labor regulations. “Sweatfree” would require all clothing with the University logo to be produced in factories where workers are paid a living wage, and given representation by a legitimate and independent organization.

Less than a week before the sit-in, the Coalition meant inside a classroom from 7pm to 1am on March 29^th. When asked why they were there, the students took turns expressing their personal reasons for taking part in the Coalition. Leigh came because she anticipates the day when University apparel goes sweatfree so she can proudly wear her Michigan gear; Aria came because sweatshop labor is one of today’s most shameful human rights abuses; Alex came because he was moved to action after talking to his housemate who is a member of SOLE; Acca came because its about time Michigan catches up with the growing number of universities that has committed to producing their apparel under sweatfree conditions.

U-Sweatfree in theory, not in practice: This six-hour long meeting was one of the Coalitions many meetings that week, which materialized into the sit-in at President Coleman’s office. The Coalition claims that the occupation was eight years in the making. The University’s Code of Conduct, which prohibits University apparel from being produced in sweatshops, was instated in 1999 by then-President Lee Bollinger after SOLE staged a two day sit-in. Now eight year removed from the Code’s adoption, the University has not yet taken any enforcement measures.

University apparel is made under licensing arrangements with corporations such as Nike and Adidas. These corporations outsource their production to factories around the world, where apparel workers often face abusive treatment, sexual harassment, unsafe working condition and excessive working hours to earn wages that cannot support their families.

While President Coleman has openly acknowledged the fact that University apparel is produced in sweatshops, she has taken no action to discipline licensee conduct since assuming office in 2002. “[President] Coleman has acknowledged that the Code [of Conduct] is rarely enforced,” said LSA junior and SOLE member Jason Bates, “and that those factories that do enforce them become uncompetitive and are shut-down, but [Coleman] has yet to take any proactive step to stem this problem.”

The proposed solution—the Designated Suppliers Program: It is unfortunate that the University’s inaction on sweatshop labor cannot be attributed to a lack of options. For the last two years, SOLE and the Sweatfree Coalition have asked President Coleman to adopt the Designated Suppliers Program, also known as the DSP.

The DSP is a program that would monitor factories that produce collegiate apparel. Signing onto the DSP would commit the University to producing its apparel in factories with sweatfree conditions. It has been adopted by more than thirty other Universities, which includes Grand Valley State, Indiana University and University of Wisconsin Madison.

Unlike a boycott—which SOLE members have denounced as an ineffective method that could leave workers jobless—the DSP does not ask the University to cut licensing contracts with corporations like Nike. The DSP intends for the contracts to be kept, but requires the production of University apparel focused in factories that meet sweatfree standards.

The Program gives licensees a three-year time period to transition its factories’ conditions to meet such standards. In the first year, 25% of University apparel must be produced from these designated factories; with this number rising by another 25% each subsequent year as more factories are brought into the system.

Doing the right thing and making big bucks: By keeping the production of collegiate apparel in designated sweatfree factories, the DSP instates a system where companies are profiting by taking the high road in recognizing workers’ rights. Currently, factories are ‘racing to the bottom’—attempting to maximize profits by cutting costs through lowering factory conditions and safety standards, and stripping workers of their basic rights. Under such a system, corporations simply abandon factories with union representation, causing many workers to be suddenly jobless. Such was the case in the BJ&B factory located in the Dominican Republic. When the workers organized to win shorter hours and higher wages, Nike and Reebok pulled their orders from the factory, forcing it to shut down and leaving the workers jobless. Under the DSP, University apparel can only be produced from sweatfree factories after the given 3-year transition period. The Program would, therefore, make production in sweatfree factories profitable for corporations and production in sweatshops unprofitable. If the University had adopted the DSP, Nike and Reebok’s decision to pull orders out of BJ&B would have made for an illogical and poor business decision. The DSP ends the current ‘race to the bottom’ by rewarding factories that give human life priority. As the number-two seller of collegiate apparel in the nation, the University has the ability to create a positive ripple effect on the global apparel industry by going sweatfree.

Is there a point to sitting?: For two years, SOLE have asked President Coleman to actively consider the DSP through letter writing campaigns, rallies, educational events and numerous meeting requests. For two years, Coleman has refused to engage in dialogue with students about the DSP; making the deliberate decision to sit idly as millions of workers continue to bear day-to-day abuses as they make t-shirts, caps and sports uniforms adorned with our University’s name and logo. Whether staging a sit-in was the best strategy for the Sweatfree Coalition is debatable, but the administration’s lack of response these past two years made it clear to the Coalition that a more creative approach was needed. “[We sat-in] because the University won’t take action on this issue,” said LSA junior and SOLE member Aria Everts, “We’ve tried their process, their meetings and forums and conferences, we’ve tried it for two years, and we’re still no closer to a solution.”

Arrested Development: On April 3^rd, President Coleman had the option of adopting the DSP, engaging in dialogue with the students in her office about the DSP, or arresting them for whistle-blowing at the administration’s negligence toward the University’s own Code of Conduct. Taking the least honorable route, President Coleman permanently expelled the 12 students from the Fleming Building, and called the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to arrest them. President Coleman set a dangerous precedent for non-violent student actions, as this was the first arrest of students during peaceful demonstration in thirty years at the University.

In an interview with the Michigan Daily, Coleman said, “I don’t see sitting in a building overnight as a way to be heard.” While Coleman tried to ignore the students’ presence in her office on April 3^rd, press people came in and out of the Fleming building to interview the students. The day after the office occupation, the sweatfree sit-in received coverage from local papers, as well as the Washington Post, the New York Times and the London Guardian.

While President Coleman had the right to call for the arrest of the students, should we as students be complacent with such exercise of power? The twelve students were intentionally breaking University security policies by sitting-in at the Fleming building after closing time. Yet, it seems that President Coleman can arbitrarily choose which University policies to enforce and which ones to ignore. Should we be complacent with Coleman use of authority to disregard the University’s own Code of Conduct, yet arrest the students who hold her accountable?

The Michigan Difference: What does it mean to be a wolverine? It can mean wearing maize and blue, cheering for our sports teams, or even singing our fight song in the shower. It also comes with obligations. It means believing that ‘the Michigan Difference’ is more than a slogan, but also a practice. School spirit, much like responsible citizenship, is not always an easy task without any sacrifices. Being a wolverine requires loyalty—not a blind loyalty to always stand by administrative policies and decisions, but a loyalty to high standards for this University. It means working for positive changes where it is needed, even if that means challenging the administration. It means pointing out our University’s inaction on, and complacency toward sweatshop labor because according to the Michigan Difference campaign “[This University is] dedicated to making an important difference to the citizens of our state, our nation and the world”. When asked why he decided to sit-in, SOLE member Jason Bates said, “Because this is the University of Michigan. If there is any place where decency and responsibility should be expected from our leaders, it is here.”