Progressive opinion in the heart of Texas

While I was hanging out at the university today, I came upon today's Daily Texan, a pretty solid student-run daily.

There was a story in the opinion section lamenting the production of Longhorns apparel -- some of the most popular in the country, as Texas has a well-developed brand -- in sweatshops. Full text here and below:

UT’s Athletic Director Deloss Dodds once said of the University, “We’re not keeping up with the Joneses, we are the Joneses.” He’s right — there are few brands in America that are marketed as well as the severed bovine head we call our logo. A recent “Texas Monthly” article about the University of Texas machine was aptly titled “Come early. Be Loud. Cash in.” Selling merchandise is a good thing, and UT is better at it than any school in the country.

While I’ve always enjoyed walking around campus and being greeted by people wearing burnt-orange everything, it wasn’t until recently that I became cognizant of where all this apparel came from. As it turns out, the majority of UT apparel is manufactured in sweatshop conditions. While this fact in itself is troubling, more upsetting is that there has been a proposal in place for months now that would allow UT to eliminate the use of sweatshop labor in the production of its merchandise, and to date, it has not been accepted by the administration.

The initiative is called the Designated Suppliers Program, and it is a program that requires university licensees — in UT’s case, Nike — to source most University logo apparel from factories that have been determined through independent verification to be in compliance with their obligation to respect the rights of their employees. This includes the right to organize and bargain collectively and the right to be paid a living wage. To date, 44 universities have signed on to the program, including the entire University of California system, Duke University, Georgetown University and the University of Miami.

A sample cost breakdown conducted by GEAR for sports, an apparel company that markets the Champion brand, revealed how cost is distributed in the sale of a $37.99 sweatshirt at the University of Connecticut Co-op. It was revealed that only 18 cents was designated for the labor cost, which amounts to 0.047 percent of the total cost of that $37.99 sweatshirt. It should be noted that price is not dependent on what it costs to manufacture the product, but rather how much consumers are willing to pay for it. If the labor cost in the creation of merchandise were to double or even triple, the ultimate price shift the consumer would see would be non-existent or negligible. And based on sheer popularity, it’s probable that most fans would purchase a UT football jersey even if it was infested with Africanized bees, much less if it cost them a few pennies more.

The Oxfam UT Sweatshop Free Campaign has spearheaded the initiative to get President William Powers to sign on to the program. The group has been campaigning since last spring and submitted its first formal proposal to the administration in August. In a meeting with the administration last Monday, the group was told the University would not accept the proposal at that time, partly because of concerns that the program may violate antitrust laws.

Many of the schools that have refused to sign off on the agreement have had similar concerns, but these claims seem to be unsubstantiated. Donald Baker, a former assistant attorney general in charge of the Antitrust Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote a 20-page memo concluding that the program does not interfere with antitrust law. In a follow-up letter about the memo to the Workers Rights Consortium, Baker wrote, “We continue to believe that the program, adopted in order to serve humanitarian goals rather than revenue enhancement, is consistent with the U.S. antitrust law.” I doubt that the program would pass the litmus test of 44 universities, including many that also license their apparel to Nike, if it were to lead to a lawsuit. As was said best in a press release put forth by Oxfam UT last week, “This is a moral issue and not a legal one.”

Signing on to the DSP holds no legal liabilities to the University. If Powers were to give the program his approval, it would merely mean that UT supports the program, and that when it gets implemented after all the legal processes, it will take part in providing a living wage and ensuring free association for laborers. More importantly, if the University signs on, it will set a very important precedent. Because The University of Texas sells more merchandise than any school in the nation, if we support this initiative, it will put pressure on other schools to perhaps do the same, because, alas, we are the Joneses.

Good words!