In the past few weeks, the Nike motto appears to have changed from "Just do it!" to "Just do it our way, or else!" In a disturbing display of industrial and financial power, Nike Chair Phil Knight recently reneged on a promised $30 million donation to the University of Oregon, and the company cancelled a multi-year, multi-million dollar apparel contract with the University of Michigan. The reason: both schools are affiliated with the human rights monitoring group the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC). Nike, a member of the Fair Labor Association (FLA)--a monitoring group backed by the government, several apparel manufacturers and 134 universities, including Harvard--accuses the WRC of being hostile toward corporations and setting unreasonable monitoring standards. While some of the company's complaints are valid, its actions are egregious.

The differences between the two monitors are marked. The WRC requires full disclosure of all factory locations, a living wage for all employees, surprise inspections by fully independent monitors and a governing board free of corporate influence. The FLA, in contrast, requires neither full disclosure nor a living wage, relies on announced inspections by corporate-approved monitors and allows corporate representatives to sit on its governing board. The WRC has been acclaimed by student groups and chided by big business, while the FLA has students on the picket line and corporate gurus sitting pretty.

In the midst of Nike's many specious criticisms of the WRC, however, it has lodged two valid complaints. First, it is unreasonable to demand that corporations pay a living wage without defining what that living wage is. Second, in order for any monitoring group to be successful, it requires corporate input. Sweatshop monitoring exists to provide the public with full and accurate information about the conditions under which apparel is being manufactured, thereby giving consumers the tools they need to make informed decisions about what to buy. Yet, the ultimate end of sweatshop monitoring is to induce changes in the working conditions of substandard factories, and reality dictates that accomplishing this goal requires setting clear standards and may necessitate seeking input from apparel manufactures themselves.

These complaints have not fallen on deaf ears. On April 28 several universities affiliated with the WRC announced their intentions to open dialogue with apparel producers, indicating the organization's pragmatic desire to effect change through discourse while maintaining its principled stance that giving apparel producers a greater say does not entail giving them a seat on the administrative board. However, since the Nike events transpired, the FLA has merely taken another opportunity to demonstrate its corporate servitude and resistance to change, reiterating on April 26 that it could not commit to a policy of full disclosure and independent monitoring.

Harvard has thus far steered a prudent course, remaining affiliated with the FLA while the WRC worked through the complicated process of establishing itself as a functional and legitimate monitoring organization. However, the time has arrived for Harvard to take a new tack. We urge Harvard to withdraw its support for the FLA and join the 46 universities and numerous labor and human rights groups who have decided to back the WRC. Doing so while the WRC is still in its early stages will give Harvard the opportunity to help shape the organization's policies. Harvard would also send a clear signal to the FLA that it can no longer feign legitimacy and independence while its corporate members strong-arm universities into accepting its reform facade. The choice is clear: If Harvard is truly committed to improving conditions for garment workers, it must support the WRC.