Beware of a police committee stacked with SAS

Last Thursday, April 29, I received an apparently widely distributed e-mail message regarding the proposed "sweatshop advisory board." It was indicated that the advisory board would have two functions: To monitor agreements made by the university with outside agencies where the use of sweatshop labor is a concern, and to find an appropriate agency to act as the independent monitor that SAS has been requesting.

The message also indicates that members of the campus community who have an interest in human rights, and labor rights in particular, would be best suited for the job.

To this end, it is concluded that current members of SAS would be reasonable candidates.

It is this last suggestion that concerns me. If such an advisory board was created, filling it solely with members of SAS, or for that matter those that support the actions and ideas of this group, would be irresponsible at the very least. There are people out there who do not approve of the actions taken by SAS recently. I count myself among them, not because I am a supporter of sweatshops, but because I believe that SAS misrepresents some of the important facts regarding this issue.

I also believe that their methods are inappropriate, and I question the motives of at least a few of their members - specifically those who participate in the public mockery of Dr. Likins, an act that really can only be considered propaganda.

I believe that members of this proposed board should have a concern for human rights. However, I urge the organizers of this committee, as well as everyone who has an interest in university affairs, to ensure that this board equally represents, in so far as it is possible, the views of all those who have a concern in this issue.

At the very least, for each member of the board who is also a member of SAS, there should be included another member who, for sensible reasons, does not consider themselves a supporter of that particular organization.

David Towers
Psychology graduate student