Article left out important details about sweatshops
Issue date: 11/12/07 Section: Letters to the Editor
TO THE EDITOR:
As a fellow organizer for workers' rights at the University of Southern California, I was disappointed to read the article "Students Lobby for Workers" (Nov. 9), which omitted significant facts and details regarding the sweat-free campaign at UNC.
The article failed to mention that the campaign is advocated by a broad base of support at UNC, with 10 student groups formally endorsing the campaign.
The writer also cites (Chancellor James) Moeser's letter that "There is more momentum among the very top public universities licensing programs to pursue alternatives to the DSP," but totally omits the fact that 60 other American colleges and universities also held actions on their campuses in solidarity with UNC's action - misleading readers to believe that the DSP is a marginal program compared to Moeser's proposal.
This is not an isolated incident - students at UNC are not simply refusing to leave the chancellor alone until he signs onto the DSP but have been engaging with him for nearly two years within the University licensing committee, which supports the DSP.
The struggle to hold our universities accountable for profiting from sweatshop labor is an international movement and not a lone effort at UNC.
Teresa Cheng
University of Southern California
As a fellow organizer for workers' rights at the University of Southern California, I was disappointed to read the article "Students Lobby for Workers" (Nov. 9), which omitted significant facts and details regarding the sweat-free campaign at UNC.
The article failed to mention that the campaign is advocated by a broad base of support at UNC, with 10 student groups formally endorsing the campaign.
The writer also cites (Chancellor James) Moeser's letter that "There is more momentum among the very top public universities licensing programs to pursue alternatives to the DSP," but totally omits the fact that 60 other American colleges and universities also held actions on their campuses in solidarity with UNC's action - misleading readers to believe that the DSP is a marginal program compared to Moeser's proposal.
This is not an isolated incident - students at UNC are not simply refusing to leave the chancellor alone until he signs onto the DSP but have been engaging with him for nearly two years within the University licensing committee, which supports the DSP.
The struggle to hold our universities accountable for profiting from sweatshop labor is an international movement and not a lone effort at UNC.
Teresa Cheng
University of Southern California
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Salma Mirza
posted 11/12/07 @ 7:22 AM EST
Teresa's letter brings up a number of the important omissions of the DTH's story.
A further clarification-- some of the members of the licensing committee support the DSP, though the entire committee did not recommend it and whether or not to sign on to the DSP is ultimately decided by the Chancellor, not the licensing committee. (Continued…)
Salma Mirza
posted 11/12/07 @ 7:28 AM EST
Teresa's letter brings up a number of important omissions and misconceptions of the previous article.
A further clarification: Some of the members of the licensing committee support the DSP, though not all, but they did not recommend against it and it is ultimately the Chancellor's final decision to act ethically by adopting the DSP. (Continued…)
Post a Comment