Asking the Hard Questions

In the past few weeks, Harvard has taken a number of steps in the sensitive area of anti-sweatshop policies, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain them to the Harvard community.

The issue first arose about a year ago, when some students and alumni asked Harvard what it intended to do to improve conditions in those factories that manufacture the t-shirts, sweatshirts, caps and other clothing items that bear Harvard's name. At the time, we were not in a very good position to respond, because traditionally universities in this country have not been involved in the manufacture of such items. Universities authorize licensees such as Champion or Starter to produce clothing, and those licensees in turn contract with shirt or hat factories who do the actual manufacturing. The licensees pay us a royalty (usually less than 10 percent of the wholesale price, which is about half the retail price) for each item. But universities are not in the business of making or selling the clothing itself, and so we have customarily known Ettle about how the clothing is actually made.

Nonetheless, most people at Harvard responded positively, in principle, to the assertion that we bear some responsibility for seeing that clothing bearing our name is made under safe and humane conditions, and that workers are paid decently and are treated with respect. The challenge lies in determining what we and other institutions can do to influence the manufacturing process in a constructive way.

Over the past several months, I have met with students, licensees, clothing workers and their union representatives, federal government officers, my counterparts at other universities, and leaders of human rights organizations to learn the facts and to try to shape policies that Harvard can implement effectively. This process is far from over, but I think we have made progress toward these goals. President Rudenstine, Provost Fineberg and members of Harvard's governing boards have fully supported these efforts and have made clear that they are ready to commit Harvard to doing what it can to improve conditions for workers.

There seem to me to be three questions to which we need answers:

First, what are the actual conditions in the factories that make Harvard-licensed clothing? We hear sometimes-conflicting reports from students and organized labor on the one hand, and from the licensees themselves on the other. It is difficult to sit in Cambridge and try to get an accurate picture of conditions in El Salvador, China or Indonesia, where many of these items are actually cut, sewn and screened, and we cannot responsibly try to institute change without knowing what needs changing.

Second, what can Harvard or other universities actually do to improve conditions that need improving? Students and organized labor urge that we stop doing business with companies that do not adhere to responsible manufacturing practices, but terminating a contract does not by itself improve any worker's situation. The threat of termination only works if it induces manufacturers to improve conditions themselves. Would such threats be effective? Who are the responsible manufacturers out there who operate safe and humane workplaces, to whom we could switch our business? Most licensees already have codes of responsible conduct. Are they effective or just a public relations gimmick? How patient should we be in awaiting improvement? How quick should we be to terminate contracts with licensees who want to do the right thing but need time and encouragement to bring about meaningful change?

Third, how can we be sure that we do not hurt the workers we are trying to help? What if clothing workers in a particular country or region, given the choice, would prefer not to see us terminate licenses that might put them out of jobs? While we should not passively accept a status quo, we must avoid the mistake of assuming that we know better than workers what is best for them. This information must come from the workers or their representatives, and we should be very careful to see that it is accurate and reliable. It is one thing to support workers who welcome our support; it is quite another to impose our views on those who do not want them.

These questions are, of course, related to each other, and their answers must all begin with the proposition that we need to know what is wrong and how it can be fixed before we announce our solutions. Harvard is now actively exploring with other universities the feasibility of a pilot program to give us first-hand access to information about actual factory conditions, through the use of experienced monitors and human rights organizations that would report directly to us and advise us on the most effective responses to these conditions. Our goal is to learn enough over the course of a year to arrive at a long-term policy that will give us reasonable assurance that we know what we can effectively do to minimize, and perhaps eliminate altogether, abusive, unsafe or inhumane conditions in those workplaces that make clothing bearing our name.

Other efforts are being made in other quarters to this end. For example, this week a nonprofit endeavor known as the Fair Labor Association (FLA) urged universities to join in its efforts, and Harvard has agreed to do so. The FLA may or may not prove itself able to devise effective solutions, but we support its attempts even as we pursue other avenues. We don't know where answers will eventually be found, but we are determined to pursue these important questions as seriously as we can. Allan A. Ryan Jr. is an attorney in Harvard's Office of General Counsel.