The recent sit-in by the Stanford Sweat-Free Coalition has raised more questions than answers about an extremely controversial and heavily debated topic. The students are working toward a noble cause; improving labor standards is something we should all certainly subscribe to in the long term. Unfortunately, the group is remiss in both its short-term goals and methods.

To start, the coalition proclaims its overarching goal to be forcing Stanford to join the Workers’ Rights Consortium (WRC) and the Designated Suppliers Program (DSP), which, according to the coalition’s website, would make sure that the “workers who produce our Stanford apparel do not work in sweatshops.” Upon closer examination, though, the issue becomes more ambiguous.

The DSP lists various criteria a factory must meet in order to qualify as a supplier to universities that are signatories. One particularly suspicious criterion is the requirement that a factory must respect “workers’ associational rights,” which can be demonstrated by the presence of a labor union at the factory, or in one’s absence, the right for workers to freely unionize.

This is certainly a noble goal. The only problem is that many of the countries hosting factories in question do not permit unionization.

China, for instance, permits only one, state-controlled trade union and strictly prohibits independent unions, collective bargaining or labor organization, with violators often facing serious prison sentences. Even if a factory in China wanted to grant workers these rights, it could not do so legally. Sure, increased democracy in China is a lofty aim, but in the short-run, does this labor standard help or burden the lives of individual workers? The answer is not so clear.

In addition to confused objectives, the coalition is flatly out of line with its methods. The group openly boasts the fact that it has met with President Hennessey six times over the last three months, with another meeting scheduled for next week and an ultimate decision scheduled to be made sometime in June, making the timing of this protest rather curious.

That meeting, according to President Hennessey’s office, will now be canceled. If the coalition truly wanted to force President Hennessey to take action on its demands, as it claimed was the intention of the protest, why throw away all this progress for what now, fairly or unfairly, appears to be a glorified attention stunt?

Stanford is a big bureaucracy and, as with any big bureaucracy, decisions take time. The demands the Sweat-Free coalition is making are no small drop in the bucket. They stand to affect many millions of dollars of business and perhaps the lives of many millions more. I, for one, am happy to see the administration act deliberately when addressing issues of this magnitude. Whether or not President Hennessey truly intended to support the group next month is uncertain; it is, however, almost certain that he will not now. As a member of student groups that have had difficulty scheduling meetings with President Hennessey, his willingness to meet with the coalition seven times over the course of three months suggests sincere interest on his part. While, admittedly, I have not been present at the meetings, it is quite possible that the coalition overplayed its hand in trying to force an earlier decision.

Stanford lately has seen a flurry of student activism. This should be commended, as the student body — like any part of a democratic institution — should voice its opinions and voice them loudly. The success of campaigns hosted by SLAC and STAND both demonstrate, however, the need for patient persistence when dealing with controversial issues. The sweat-free coalition may ultimately have succeeded. Now it seems like we will never know.

Matt Platkin

Class of 2009