Opinion: Guest column
Criticism of SLAC off-base, unwarranted
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jan Van Tol and Eric Hoyt:
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Sam Clegg’s Feb. 12 column (“SLAC’s good intentions no good”) makes the argument that the situation resulting in the termination of the Russell contract was “considerably more nuanced” than we are willing to admit. Nuanced it might be, but unfortunately, he got several facts wrong and made a few curious omissions.
Firstly, he asserts that Jerzees de Honduras was an “affiliate company” or “subsidiary” of Russell. In fact, this factory is unique in that Russell Athletic is its direct owner and manager, making the company’s culpability in this case even more clear.
Secondly, Clegg bases much of his argument on a report issued by the so-called Fair Labor Association, so it’s not surprising that he doesn’t mention that UW-Madison has never been a member of the FLA and that the FLA is largely funded and governed by the same corporations it purports to monitor. Furthermore, in its summary report, the FLA ignored the findings of its own lead investigator, Adrian Goldin, a well-known international labor expert who visited Honduras in January and concluded that “the closure of the factory has been determined, at least to a significant extent, by the existence and activity of the union.”
It’s clear that the FLA monitoring Russell is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. We take a dim view of such self-serving “monitoring,” while Clegg, it seems, prefers to trust the fox.
Clegg criticizes the “primitive flowchart” drawn on the blackboard connecting Warren Buffett with the Jerzees case. While mockery of our artistic abilities may be fair, his suggestion that we instead engage in a “relatively straightforward critique of brutal management” is simply bizarre. These abuses are not the result of a few bad apples in the plant management. In fact, Russell executives have actively campaigned against students’ efforts in this case and have stridently defended that same “brutal management.”
So, where does the responsibility lie? With the managers who illegally threatened workers with termination or with the executives who knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it? Although not an excuse for their conduct, managers in the plant were following standard company practice, and so the ultimate responsibility lies with the executives who condone those practices and have the power to change them.
Clegg also makes the absurd argument that the Student Labor Action Coalition should suspend actions in solidarity with garment workers and instead “volunteer to employ the people whose jobs Russell had terminated.” We’re sorry, Mr. Clegg, but a few UW-Madison students are in no position to employ hundreds of people across international borders. On the other hand, Russell Athletic has both the capability and responsibility to fix the mess they’ve created.
Finally, Clegg incorrectly implies that the factory closed as a result of UW-Madison’s termination of the Russell contract. In fact, Russell announced the closure months before the university took any action. He further criticizes SLAC for deeming ourselves “morally superior,” and for promoting an “illusory notion of moral vindication” without any evidence. Please, Mr. Clegg, the next time you want to randomly characterize activists as “whimsically self-important,” at least make an attempt to justify it.
As we write this, the University of Washington has just become the seventh university to sever ties with Russell. The courage of Moises and Norma, the two workers who visited last week, is evident and admirable. Their tour around the country has been remarkably effective; Russell and its parent company, Berkshire Hathaway, have begun to pay serious attention to the case.
We’re still hopeful that Russell will do the right thing by reversing course and following the remediation steps spelled out in the Worker Rights Consortium’s report. If that were to happen, SLAC would fully support reinstating Russell’s contract. Our power as students to affect the global garment industry is in our ability to control the use of our school’s logo and affect real change for real people.
Oh, but if we ever need advice on how to be ineffective and irrelevant, we’ll be sure to ask Sam Clegg. Until then, we’ll keep on struggling to build another world in solidarity with workers, or as Clegg believes, lying bricks on our “long, long road to hell.”
Jan Van Tol (jan@spiny.com) is a senior and member of SLAC and Eric Hoyt (hoyt@wisc.edu) is a junior and member of SLAC.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Rock on SLAC! As a recent alumnus (2008), a large part of my pride in my UW education lies in the University’s, and students’, commitment to social justice. It is no honor to have a degree that is tied to the exploitation of other human beings and imposed poverty. But UW’s action in cases such as this demonstrates what sets it apart from most other universities. I hope Chancellor Martin and her staff see this and understand that students and alumni (future donors!) expect more action like this, when warranted, in the future!
Go SLAC! Here is the blog of the Honduran garment workers’ tour which stopped at UW-Madison last week: www.reininrussell.blogspot.com
SLAC owned you Clegg!!!
Go SLAC, Go SLAC!
Excellent points you made and hopefully this is only part of a larger trend in world affairs away from the rule of money over human life. I applaud your stance and your clarity of expression. Students are the future and your group gives reason to be hopeful.
Steve Herzfeld Fairfield, Iowa
It’s not hard to defend your position by merely pointing out the flaws in the attacks of your opponent. That’s why Rush Limbaugh attracts so many listeners. It’s easy to sound right when you aren’t defending your own position. Whether you agree or disagree with SLAC or Clegg on this issue, this is far from the end all defense of SLAC’s position on this.
SLAC ought to be defending the recent actions of the UW as actually helping improve the lives of workers in impoverished countries. Even if Clegg may have gotten some things wrong, he does a much better job of addressing that topic. SLAC ought not assume that they are correct and the burden of proof is on others to prove them wrong. This is one of the greatest flaws of the campus far-left and why they will never constitute the mainstream campus opinion.