PSAS reasserts demands

Nearly six months after their now-famous nine-day sit-in, members of Penn Students Against Sweatshops are criticizing the University again and repeating their demand that Penn join the Worker Rights Consortium. PSAS submitted a letter to University President Judith Rodin Monday saying that the Committee on Manufacturer Responsibility has not fulfilled its stated obligations. The committee was formed late last spring to replace the Ad Hoc Committee on Sweatshop Labor, which had recommended that Penn withhold membership from either the WRC or the Fair Labor Association. Both the WRC and FLA are attempting to monitor factories used to produce college apparel and ensure that they use proper working conditions. Penn belonged to the FLA until last February, when Rodin was convinced to pull out of it as a result of the sit-in. The WRC is supported by most human rights organizations --ÿand while it had only a few members during the sit-in, the numbers have swelled. The FLA, meanwhile, is supported by the White House and the apparel industry. While committee members refute the PSAS criticism of their progress, the student group said it sees problems in the current process. One of PSAS' concerns is the way the committee is evaluating the two available monitoring organizations. Although the committee said it would take a close look at University representation within the groups, PSAS claims it has abandoned this as a priority. Additionally, the group claims the committee has not secured monitoring reports from all the factories producing Penn-logo apparel as it was supposed to after the University approved a Code of Conduct last spring for all factories it uses. "Based on what we were hearing from our representatives [on the committee], we needed to do something to hold the committee accountable," said College junior Matthew Grove, a PSAS member and one of the letter's three authors. The committee will recommend whether Penn should join the WRC or the FLA by Thanksgiving. FLA opponents argue that the WRC is better suited to protect workers' rights because it has fewer ties to corporate interests and is committed to stricter guidelines. But the WRC is less established and critics say it will have a more difficult time enforcing those standards. Committee Chairman Gregory Possehl responded to the group's claims in a letter yesterday. "I have said that the level of university representation on the governing board of either organization is not the only criterion we might use for making a decision," Possehl said in his letter to PSAS. "I did not mean, however -- contrary to the letter's suggestion -- that university representation is not a very important criterion," the Anthropology Department chairman continued. "It obviously is." But PSAS member Annie Wadsworth said that work done last year on the sweatshop issue mandated that University representation remain the primary concern in evaluating monitoring organizations. "It's kind of a step back to say it's only one of many [concerns]," she said. Possehl also noted that despite PSAS' allegations, the University has requested monitoring reports from factories producing University-logo clothing. "Penn mailed the Code to all apparel licensees almost four months ago, on July 3, 2000," Possehl explained in his letter. "The Code requires licensees to file reports with the University no later than January 3, 2001." The Committee on Manufacturer Responsibility -- composed of students, faculty and staff -- was formed last May. It will work to enforce the University's Code of Conduct for University apparel manufacturers as well as recommend whether the University should join the WRC or FLA. Grove also said he was worried that the committee was being swayed by political dealings. "We're frustrated with how it doesn't seem to be openly democratic in how the agenda is set," he said. "It's been more politically motivated." Rodin expressed her confidence in the committee in an e-mail statement yesterday. "I am confident that the standing committee will weigh all of the significant factors, including university representation, with great care and will reach its own conclusions based on a full discussion of the issues."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.