By
The Wildcat Opinions Board
As a result of the efforts of the University Committee on Corporate Relations and Students Against Sweatshops, UA student athletes may be given the chance to choose whether their uniforms display the Nike swoosh logo. While the gesture is purely symbolic, it gives UA athletes a choice they deserve to have.
The UCCR proposed the policy after their SAS representative members brought it to the table. The proposal will be voted on by the Faculty Senate next Monday. The athletic department supports giving their athletes the right to choose whether they wear the Nike symbol or not.
UCCR's proposal is a result of efforts from Students Against Sweatshops, a group that is making the university conscious about international labor rights on multiple levels. Former SAS member and UCCR representative Avery Koler first proposed the idea, and current SAS member and UCCR representative Rachel Wilson helped persuade the committee to move forth with it this semester.
According to UCCR member and faculty chair Jerry Hogle, the proposal is one that all parties seem to agree on.
"SAS inspired this proposal, and we worked it out so it works for all of us," Hogle said.
Hogle also says the faculty senate is likely to pass the proposal.
"I haven't heard any opposition to it," he said.
Clearly, the influence of SAS is raising awareness about international labor rights within many facets of the UA community. It is impressive that UCCR would move forth so aggressively on this issue. Given the social movement for fair labor rights that has just begun to gain momentum, major corporations are being scrutinized by everyone, including their university customers. UCCR probably realized that given the controversies surrounding fair labor conditions, it is possible that some student athletes may not want the logo.
However, this proposal is merely a symbolic gesture. UA athletics still use Nike gear. That the Nike swoosh symbol may not be displayed on a few athletes' uniforms does not exactly disable Nike's advertising empire.
Nike is not likely to actively oppose this gesture. The company is on the good side of the athletic department, and giving their athletes a choice in this matter does not pose a significant threat to its use of Nike products.
"(This proposal) will have very little effect on us, if any," said UA athletic director Jim Livengood. "It is not a big issue with athletics, Nike is perceived as being a quality company."
Basically, the UA is still a good customer.
But simply the fact that UCCR would propose this policy could raise awareness among student athletes. Athletes who never gave their swoosh logo a second glance might do so, and think about the larger role of international corporate labor policies.
It is a small but significant gesture for UCCR to even consider giving student athletes a choice in this matter. The UA faculty senate ought to give the proposal a nod on Monday.
