Authoritarian decisions dangerous
Aaron Kreider
Think, Question, Resist
In the next several days, the University will decide whether to join the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). The WRC is an anti-sweatshop association that would monitor how collegiate apparel is made with the goal of promoting fair conditions for workers.
The University had two ways of making this important decision. Using Approach A, it could have asked students, faculty and staff what to do. It might take into account the 23-5 Faculty Senate vote to join the WRC and the upcoming Student Senate vote on Wednesday. It might listen to the 100-200 people who braved 28-degree weather to attend a pro-WRC rally. It would read the names of over 400 students who have signed a pro-WRC petition, whose numbers are likely to double.
With Approach A, different university constituencies (students, faculty, staff, and perhaps administrators) would have formed committees. These committees would not decide what the university should do but rather generate discussion on the issue. There would be ferocious letter debates in The Observer viewpoint section, teach-ins, speakers, public forums, chalking, leafleting, posters, rallies and petitions. In addition, professors would integrate the discussion into courses.
The driving force behind this discussion would be the absolutely necessary ingredient that students, faculty, staff and possibly administrators would have the power to make the decision. Either everyone could get one vote, or faculty, students and staff could each be allotted an equal share of votes. Under these conditions, and only under them, would the Notre Dame community truly educate itself so it could make the best decision.
To some readers, Approach A might sound a little radical — that is because I just proposed being democratic.
Alternatively, the University could take Approach B, and the administration would do things on its own. President Malloy could appoint members to a taskforce with the responsibility to give him a recommendation on this issue. He would exclude possible troublemakers, such as faculty and staff who are working for a living wage ordinance in South Bend, and student activists who are working with United Students Against Sweatshops groups at 150 campuses. He would include representatives from sweatshop corporations. He would pick people based on the type of recommendation he wanted to get from the committee.
The committee would have private meetings, not open to members of the Notre Dame community. It would fail to communicate with everyone else, since it would not feel the need to communicate with non-experts. It would develop initiatives, some of which would be implemented, all without public consultation.
To some readers, Approach B might sound a little out-dated — that is because it is authoritarian.
In the wake of the University choosing Approach B, a group of students has tried to foment Approach A. We have organized, educated and mobilized students. Despite being excluded from the anti-sweatshop taskforce and being shut out of the decision-process, we continue to agitate so that our voices will be heard. Now we are in position where we are affecting the decision.
Last Friday, when it finally came for the committee to make its recommendation on the WRC, it decided that it had seen too much of Approach A. So to stop student-input it decided that its recommendation would be secret. Now, even the two student representatives on the committee, whose presence helps to legitimize the taskforce, are powerless to tell their constituency what the recommendation was.
Two years ago, over 110 members of the ND community were participating in a three-day fast, hoping to encourage the Board of Trustees to include sexual orientation in the non-discrimination clause. But unfortunately their effort was bound to fail, as the administration has already decided unanimously against the change. The decision was made two months before the fast, but the administration did not bother to tell the fasters or anyone else.
Now anti-sweatshop activists are in a quandary. The taskforce made a recommendation, but it is secret. Are we to assume that the recommendation went against us? I will guess that it did, but most people expected it would be close. Are we to wait for President Malloy to announce his decision? Will we be able to affect the decision after it has been announced? It appears, at least for a moment, that the University has partially succeeded in shutting out activists.
It is possible that, using a bad decision-making process, the University may choose to join the WRC. But even so, we cannot trust that future decisions will always be just. If Notre Dame continues to make authoritarian decisions, they will continue to prioritize the interests of the administration and its rich corporate donors who control the Board. It will listen to the rich, instead of God's call for justice. Authoritarian decisions will cause workers and other oppressed groups to suffer. We must challenge the decision-making process and all unjust decisions.
Aaron Kreider is a third year sociology graduate student. His column appears every other Monday. The lowest wage Aaron has worked for is eighty cents per hour.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, March 5, 2001
