WRC decision was a good one
Todd David Whitmore
The Common Good
Shortly before break, President Malloy approved the recommendation made by the Task Force for Anti-Sweatshop Initiatives that Notre Dame join the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC), an association of students, activists and universities organized to aid the workers who make collegiate licensed products. As a member of the task force, I voted in favor of joining the WRC.
My reasons for doing so begin with the commitment by Notre Dame to associate itself with any responsible organization that helps those who make Notre Dame products have better working conditions. This is not to say that the WRC is without its flaws and I discussed these in my last column: Much can be improved about its monitoring and remediation processes.
However, the Fair Labor Association (FLA), of which Notre Dame is a also member, is also flawed. For instance, it is my understanding that the corporate members of the FLA squashed any discussion of the living wage before it could get started. Notre Dame has found that it can work with — even while moving beyond — the parameters of the FLA; it seemed fair and just to see if the same can hold with regard to associating with the WRC.
Concerns have been raised about the process by which the University arrived at the decision to join the WRC, both with regard to the constitution of the task force and with the confidentiality kept on the task force's recommendation to President Malloy. The argument concerning the constitution of the task force has been made a number of times: In the interest of openness and democratic conversation, a member of the Progressive Student Alliance should have been appointed to the Task Force. The failure to have a PSA member on the Task Force has "shut out" the PSA from the process.
This argument has a number of problems. First, if President Malloy were to operate according to an open policy in appointing a member of the PSA, then he would also have to appoint someone from the Young Republicans, Right Reason, the Entrepreneurs Club or some similar group. President Malloy appointed two representatives of student government, one undergraduate and one graduate. The question can be raised as to whether PSA interest is in openness or rather in securing power for the PSA voice per se.
This leads to the second problem. One of the benefits I have found in serving on the task force is the quality of the exchange among its members. A key element of that quality is the fact that persons are not afraid to change their minds on issues in light of persuasive arguments offered by others. I have seen this happen on a number of occasions in Task Force meetings. It is unclear whether the formal representative of an organization that already has its policy agenda set — whether the PSA or some other organization — would exhibit the same openness to mutual persuasion.
The third problem is with the argument that lack of PSA representation on the task force means that PSA voices have been "shut out." Aaron Krieder was invited to speak to the task force on his and the PSA's views. I can give a specific instance where his comments made a difference. In an early teach-in, he argued that the representatives of Champion, adidas and other licensees ought not to be voting members of the task force. Given that the task force is a body representing the University and not the licensees, this argument made sense to me. I want to hear what the licensees have to say, but they should not have votes shaping University policy. I made the case to the task force in its first meeting and it became formal policy that the licensees are non-voting members.
The fourth problem with the argument for the necessity of direct PSA representation is evident in viewing the substance of the task force's recommendations. The task force not only has affirmed the one thing that the PSA has been emphasizing — joining the WRC — but has gone beyond it in a variety of ways in its other recommendations to President Malloy. The view that having a PSA member on the task force would have led to better recommendations fails the empirical test. It also rests on unjust and untenable stereotyping of the members of the task force, particularly of the students who serve on the task force and do so with considerable commitment.
The other issue that arose is that of whether the recommendation of the task force regarding joining the WRC should have been publicly disclosed before President Malloy decided on it. The concern — articulated to me by a number of students — was that the fix was in: The task force and the President really decided in advance against joining the WRC and keeping the deliberations confidential was a way of avoiding accountability.
The students cited as an example the process in Notre Dame's decision not to add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination clause. The students said that they were allowed to invest considerable energy in the sexual orientation issue under the false indication that the matter was still open when in fact it had been decided months before. These students were clear that while they disagreed with the University's policy conclusions, what upset them most was what they described as a misleading process.
By now it is evident that there was no "fix" in the WRC case. My support of the process that was followed in this case is in response to a letter written by the Academic Consortium on International Trade (ACIT). The letter, penned and signed by neo-classical economists, appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education and asserted that univesity presidents were not acting reasonably in joining the WRC, but rather were simply caving in to external pressures.
I am sure that President Malloy could have withstood such pressures if the task force's recommendation to join the WRC was public and his best judgment was not to join. It seemed important, however, to be able to communicate to others in the event of our joining the WRC that the decision is indisputably the result of the considered judgment of the president (who, moreover, is an ethicist and also understands economic policy). That is about as strong a rebuttal as one can give to the ACIT letter.
I understand the history that has led to the student distrust whenever a university process on a policy issue involves periods of confidentiality. It is evident that it will take a while for trust to rebuild. The task force has more issues to address, including those of the living wage for the workers who make our products and a "conscience clause" that allows coaches and student-athletes to wear generic practice and game apparel when they cannot in good conscience wear the contracted apparel. Perhaps the process of addressing these issues — quite apart from whatever conclusions the president makes — can be the occasion of a rebuilding of trust.
Todd David Whitmore is an associate professor in the theology department. His column appears every other Thursday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Thursday, March 22, 2001
