You have seen them everywhere, from classrooms to metal poles on Library Mall. They come in an assortment of colors, the first one I noticed being a darker shade of pink. They feature a picture of our chancellor, relaxing and smiling, with the words "Sweatshop Chancellor" displayed across the right side of the page.
Thousands of Madison students received an e-mail last Thursday telling them that the chancellor requested to be their "friend" on the Facebook. If you were to type in "John Wiley" in the search option to view his profile, one would have seen a childish and embarrassing attempt to garner publicity and attention for a political cause.
Included under the heading for the chancellor's "interests" was the word "sweatshops." The chancellor's favorite music included "the sweet, sweet crooning of CEOs." His favorite T.V. show was the yet-to-be released "Real World: El Salvador." And, in his About Me section, Wiley wrote, "I just recently renamed an art museum after Jerome Chazen, CEO of Liz Claiborne. Chazen practically invented the modern sweatshop and pioneered the current model of the global garment industry. But his money has nothing to do with my sweatshop policies," among other satirical statements.
The chancellor was obviously not the author or creator of this sardonic Facebook profile. All out of constructive and legitimate plans for action, the Student Labor Action Coalition decided to create a defamatory Facebook profile for the chancellor — free of charge or consultation, of course.
Perhaps SLAC has decided to adopt new measures of coercion and explore new avenues of influence because of their stunning defeat a few weeks ago. Perhaps because of their failure working within the system, they have decided to aggressively and myopically work outside of its boundaries and on its banks.
On Nov. 2, the Student Judiciary struck down SLAC's referendum prohibiting the Student Services Finance Committee from hearing or reviewing the budget proposals of university services — including University of Wisconsin Recreational Sports, University Health Services and the student unions — that do not provide all of their employees with living wages. In effect, student participation would have been entirely absent in the segregated-fee-distribution process. Though they are only able to make recommendations to the chancellor, the SSFC would have been entirely cut out the process, effectively eliminating any voice it had, however limited.
Stung by this defeat, members of SLAC quickly turned their attention toward targeting a public figure for alleged malfeasance, without putting forth a substantive or substantial argument. In effect, SLAC decided that their efforts for political and social change no longer warranted sophisticated, mature methods or tactics. In a public display of desperation, they agreed to sell their legitimate and worthy claims short.
In order to bring about change in areas that are most dear and significant to SLAC, members must rethink their main methods of strategy. Their use of a collegiate communication network to gain recognition and legitimacy will do nothing to further their stated aims or goals — goals that remain worthy and noble, no matter the stain they may have received.
Josh Moskowitz ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
