Nike contract a contradiction

There is an inconsistency in UA policy regarding sponsorships. The University of Arizona has a policy prohibiting the acceptance of sponsorships from beer and alcohol companies if that sponsorship were to include advertising the alcoholic product. There is much documented evidence of harm done to people and society by these companies' products. Therefore, the rationale goes, the wrong message is sent to students and to the community by accepting money from these companies and advertising their products. Yet, the UA accepted a multimillion dollar sponsorship from Nike, with the specific proviso that the institution advertise Nike products. As is well known, the abuses of workers by Nike's and other apparel companies' contractors have been extensively documented.

Is there a qualitative difference here? Beer and alcohol cause harm to people and society and therefore the UA does not advertise these products. Nike products are made by what amounts to slave labor, an integral aspect of which is the abuse of children. It is an understatement to say that this situation is harmful to people. Yet, in return for money and goods the UA advertises Nike products prominently, including on national television.

I submit that if the UA holds that it is not good policy to accept money to advertise beer and alcoholic products because of the harm wrought by these products, the UA should not accept advertising sponsorships from other companies who knowingly and callously cause harm to people - and make no mistake: Nike knows the conditions under which its products are made. Why else is Nike so militant in shielding the identity of its contractors?

As a result of the UA's contract with Nike, Students Against Sweatshops is engaged in a campaign to get the University of Arizona to endorse a resolution regarding contracts with apparel companies.

The SAS activists and their supporters have no vested interest in stopping sweatshop abuses. They are standing up for the values and principles that many of us lay claim to and that parents purport to teach their children. They have a social conscience. Students are quick to protest tuition increases and other issues that affect their pocketbooks. Faculty are quick to protest any proposal that would adversely affect academic freedom or tenure policies. In an ethical society we should stand up for what's right and against what's wrong whether or not an issue affects us directly. It is that ethic that drove white people to stand up for civil rights, urban folks to support farm workers, men to support the rights of women and so on. It is that ethic that helps us survive the many bumps in the road we encounter as we try to operationalize this thing we call democracy.

Nike does not want to be monitored and is the force behind the resistance to the release of the names of its contractors. The UA is in essence acting as Nike's agent, but the UA should have no interest in protecting the identities of Nike's contractors. Just as the faculty will not stand for outsiders telling them what to teach in the classroom, the administration should not allow Nike to set UA policy.

This issue should not be about money. Nor should it be about who is right. It should be about doing what is right. In this case, standing up against the abuse of children and the exploitation of workers is the right thing to do.

Salom—n R. Baldenegro
Senior research analyst
Department of Multicultural Programs and Service