In a letter delivered to interim Chancellor William McCoy's office Tuesday, labor advocates at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill lambasted the school's administration for perceived backpedaling on commitments made last year following a four-day sit-in. University officials, however, insisted that the school remains firmly committed to improving the working conditions in factories where UNC apparel is made.
McCoy issued a brief response yesterday that acknowledged receipt of the students' letter. He wrote that he forwarded the letter to the Licensing Labor Code Advisory Committee, so the group could "provide me with its advice on the issues."
Todd Pugatch, a UNC-CH junior, said he appreciated the McCoy's prompt response, but said he still thinks UNC-CH may have backed off on demanding disclosure of factory addresses.
"If McCoy had earlier demonstrated a firm commitment to a disclosure deadline... this would not be an issue now," he said, adding that he looks forward to working with the chancellor.
In late April, McCoy, who is serving a one-year term while the system conducts a national search for a successor to the late Michael Hooker, agreed to require full disclosure.
But student activists say McCoy backed away from that commitment in an Aug. 15 letter to all companies licensed to produce UNC paraphernalia. The letter-which expressed the chancellor's wishes through the school's agent, the Collegiate Licensing Company-said disclosure would be required after the school devises "an appropriate process for responding to complaints of code violations." The target date for completing that project was given as March 31, 2000.
Several activists from Students for Economic Justice said they had understood that disclosure would be required by February 2000, and that was a deadline, not just a target.
"Target dates are noncommittal and leave open the possibility of UNC not requiring disclosure at all..." said Marion Traub-Werner, a UNC-CH senior. "We want a firm deadline for disclosure, a firm commitment."
Pete Andrews, chair of the faculty at UNC-CH and co-chair of the Labor Licensing Advisory Committee, said the university is committed to getting a complaint process, probably one that involves hiring a third-party monitor, in place "substantially before" the target date."The students were concerned about one possible interpretation of the letter," he said, "but I am absolutely convinced that's not the correct interpretation."
Andrews added that it would be foolish to require disclosure before the school has procedures-and the legal authority-to go on site and monitor those factories. "We might hear about unfair conditions someplace making UNC t-shirts, but we might not have the authority to go in there and see what's happening," he said, noting that he expects the school to beat the target date.
By Nov. 15, UNC-CH will require all licensees to agree, upon contract renewal, that all factories producing UNC products are in compliance with the CLC's code of conduct. All companies also submit their factories to independent, third-party monitors, giving UNC-CH formal authority to enter the factories.
But UNC junior Lorrie Bradley argued that disclosure should not be linked to the necessary bureaucracy for implementing and maintaining a factory monitoring program.
"While more work needs to be done in some areas, full public disclosure is not a process, it is simply a list of factory locations," she said. "My fear is that disclosure will be buried in the details of the process and delayed further."
Students said they are prepared to renew pressure on the administration if McCoy does not explicitly commit to a date. "If this issue is not sufficiently addressed, it will become part of our actions this fall," Pugatch said. "There will be serious mobilization on this campus if March 31, 2000 comes and we do not have factory names and locations in hand."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.