Tuesday, February 27, 2001

Oregon Blocks Public Colleges From Enforcing Anti-Sweatshop Codes of Conduct

By MARTIN VAN DER WERF

The public hand-wringing at the University of Oregon over its membership in

an anti-sweatshop group is apparently coming to an end. The Oregon State

Board of Higher Education has adopted a policy that will effectively

prevent the institution from enforcing its code of conduct or joining any

other group that has one that tries to set rules for a workplace.

The new policy was written because of apparent conflicts between the code

of conduct and Oregon state law, which seeks to guarantee that any company

that wants to do business with the state be given the chance to do so if it

can demonstrate that it is not engaged in any illegal behavior, and has the

capability of doing the job.

The university's code required that companies making products that bear the

Oregon name or logo must, among other provisions, pay a "living wage,"

limit work hours, not employ children, pay women and men equal amounts, and

recognize employees' rights to freedom of association and collective

bargaining.

However, that code will be superseded by the new policy, which was adopted

on February 16, said Benjamin E. Rawlins, director of legal services for

the Oregon University System, which includes the University of Oregon, and

seven other state institutions, including Oregon State University. All must

be in compliance with the new policy by the end of the year. The policy

will cover all purchases from all vendors supplying the institutions.

The University of Oregon announced in April that it was joining the Worker

Rights Consortium, a group that includes more than 70 colleges and

universities, and that has been heavily critical of worker abuses in

apparel-manufacturing facilities used by the major providers of licensed

collegiate wear.

That announcement cost the university the financial support of one of its

biggest backers, Philip H. Knight, founder and chairman of Nike and an

Oregon alumnus. He has given more than $50-million to the institution but

has said that he will not give any more.

Following Mr. Knight's statement, university officials started to question

the group's legal standing, and refused to pay its dues.

However, the university was not behind the state system's new policy, said

Mr. Rawlins.

"There was a discussion that there are existing state regulations on

procuring services, and there were also growing issues of social concern

where the buying power of the state was being talked about as a tool," he

said. "The board chose an approach that underscored the existing policy of

the board, which is to encourage open competition."

Maureen Shine, a spokeswoman for the University of Oregon, said the policy

was about "neutrality." Joining any anti-sweatshop group, including the

Fair Labor Association, of which Nike is a member, "would not be in

compliance with a policy of neutrality," she said.

Scott J. Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, said he

thinks there are ways the Oregon universities could still be members of his

group.

"One example of the maneuvering room universities would have under this

policy is that it requires companies to obey the law," said Mr. Nova. "Most

times that a company violates our code of conduct, they are violating

either local law or international law. So we think our code is consistent

with this policy."

Ms. Shine said she could not say whether the new policy would warm her

institution's relationship with Mr. Knight. A Nike spokesman said Mr.

Knight would have no comment.