I got naked in public. It was a little nerve-wracking. You may have seen me with some of my fellow protesters baring more than is comfortable. It’s almost certain we all own and wear products produced in sweatshops. As American consumers, we have little choice. But for Tuesday’s protest, we took a symbolic stand to say we’d rather face the social anxiety associated with breaking major taboos than wear “dirty” clothes. Fortunately for us at Stanford, we do have another choice. We can join or support the Sweat-Free Campaign and push our University to join the WRC and the DSP, ensuring the hallowed Stanford name is not associated with exploitation, violence and poverty-perpetuating systems of production.

The majority of the discussion about sweat-free labor has centered on issues of worker dignity and human rights, accompanied by the heart-wrenching stories of children working 15 hours a day without earning enough to feed themselves. While the lack of humanity of this situation is appalling as well as pertinent, it must be recognized that sweatshop labor is illegal according to many international laws. Accepting the universality of certain labor practices is implicit in the adoption of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As an agency of the UN, the International Labor Organization’s Fundamental Conventions on Principles and Rights at Work affect the member states of the UN, many of whom allow sweatshop practices that directly contradict these standards. With little enforcement in the international community, institutions like Stanford must stand against these injustices. What we buy and what we sell matters. It may well be the only thing that does these days.

Protesting naked was an obvious media stunt. It cannot be denied. The campaign hoped this demonstration would draw coverage from outside media. When the people in power refuse to make any decisions regarding pressing issues, outside pressure and coverage are necessary to inspire action. Nudity and other civil-disobedient demonstrations lend visibility to the movement and cause.The increased dialogue, both in print and in person, lead me to believe Tuesday’s action was successful.

The Stanford Challenge claims that “Stanford believes it has the opportunity and the obligation to bring its full resources to bear in addressing issues facing humanity.” On Tuesday, and for the past few years amidst other campaigns, students have shown this bold spirit yet have been frustrated by its absence from the very administration propagating this message to potential donors. Every student knows his or her conduct is held to the Fundamental Standard. Why won’t the administration match its actions with this standard as well? How can its behavior disregard the foundational principles and messages it presents to its community and to the world?

The sad fact is that our administration plays upon the student body’s short institutional memory. Our administration has historically employed stalling tactics hoping we’d graduate and go abroad so that the momentum or cohesion of certain movements will dissolve. STAND faced painfully incremental decisions and morally weak compromises during their divestment campaign; SLAC trudged through dozens of meetings, newly formed committees, rallies, protests and even hunger strikes to get the administration to make any decisions. Unfortunately, Sweat-Free faces the same hindrances. Diplomatic discussion with our administration ceased a while back. To anyone closely aligned with the campaign, President Henessy’s agreement to meet next week stands out as a clear effort to postpone decisions.

Nike, a staunch opponent to anti-sweatshop campaigns, outfits and supports all our sports teams, ExxonMobil funds energy research and many other global corporations have infiltrated our classrooms. Despite these funds and opportunities, we must question their influence over our core values as a University. Are we producing knowledge for knowledge’s sake, to expand humanity’s understanding of our world, or is Stanford’s research and curriculum geared toward producing profit? To do the right thing regarding donations, wages and product licensing, Stanford may have to sacrifice some of its efficiency as a profit-making machine to uphold its integrity as an institution.

A community is only as strong as its weakest member, and Stanford’s continued affiliation with industries that feed off the economic plight of workers in developing countries is a very weak link, indeed. If the University continues to disregard this issue, it becomes no better than the companies profiting off the illegal and unjust labor of children. If the administration fails to commit to protecting human rights of workers outside of as well as within the University, how can the Stanford Challenge or the Fundamental Standard ever be taken seriously?

The solution is simple. Close the gap. Join our peer institutions, Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, Brown and, yes, Berkeley, to become the 172nd member of the Worker Rights Consortium. For the campus community this could mean the difference between pride in a university that walks the way it talks and disgust at yet another American institution looking at its own short-sighted needs. For workers around the world, it could be the difference between supporting an entire family and not being able to feed even oneself.

This op-ed was co-written by Bradley Heinz ‘08 and former ASSU Senator Lindsay Love ‘06.