|
|
Letters to the Editor: April 17 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, 16 April 2008 |
USAS member speaks out
The following is a response to an e-mail sent out by Chancellor Peacock on Friday, April 11, at 7:55 p.m., less than an hour after student arrests. It is based on the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) document titled “The 19 Misrepresentations of Chancellor Peacock’s Message” which can be acquired by e-mailing
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Chancellor Peacock and the ASU administration have implied several things in attempting to defend
their actions surrounding the United Students Against Sweatshops sit-in that occurred last week. I am
writing to help clarify some of the implications and misleading points of that message. Peacock states
that the administration has attempted “to have productive dialogue and other compromises,” yet was
rejected.
Every attempt at continuing discourse on the issue of the Designated Suppliers (DSP) was initiated by
USAS, not a single one by the administration. We have record of at least eight such requests over the
last 20 months but there are likely more. No attempts at compromise were made until the day before
our arrest. This “compromise” was Cindy Wallace offering to be in contact with the 42 other universities
that had already signed on to the DSP and to set specific deadlines to meet on the issue – actions that
most would agree should have been happening over the last 20 months, but didn’t.
Peacock also claims that the university’s “only legal recourse” was to arrest its own students. He fails
to mention, however, that he could have simply to support the DSP and pledge to move forward with
the implementation. Those were the demands of the students. It was his choice: make ASU the first
school in the UNC system to adopt proactive anti-sweatshop practices that potentially cost the
university no money at all, or arrest your own students for participating in a peaceful act of democratic
expression.
Additionally, students were charged with Disorderly Conduct and First Degree Trespassing. And as his
greatest regret, Peacock cites the lack of “positive movement toward addressing the [issue].” He
points to ASU having done its part by holding “multiple meetings” in the last six months. Unfortunately,
for the validity of both these points, his office decided to shut down negotiations on the issue back on
Dec. 6th, 2007. That was one of only two meetings that his office had with USAS in the last six
months.
The other occurred Feb. 14, 2008 on which he granted an unscheduled meeting because a friendly
administrator asked him to when students showed up at his building. Readers of the e-mail then learn
from Peacock that ASU has been working diligently and has a “steadfast” commitment to eliminating
sweatshops and that it considers its membership in the Fair Labor Association (FLA) evidence of that.
This sort of rhetoric seems pretty hallow considering the decidedly careless manner in which ASU has
chosen to address this issue.
It is even a slap in the face to people who have been doing real work on this issue to see the FLA (a
decidedly secret factory monitoring body whose board is composed of the very companies it is charged
with investigating) touted as some sort of monumental achievement. Ineptitude is just a silly, dishonest
thing to take pride in. I don’t throw a celebratory kegger every time Crossroads screws up my coffee
order. And as for the kicker: Peacock declares that students need to prove that ASU uses
sweatshops.
Lets take a step back here and conceptualize this for a second: (1) Sweatshops are an apparel
industry standard. There is little in place to prevent manufacturers from constantly forcing lower prices
and cutting corners with labor rights and worker safety. (2) Most ASU apparel is manufactured by
brands with consistent and proven track records of human and labor rights abuses. The FLA does not
release specific factory locations or full factory imports, making it all but impossible to prove without a
doubt that these conditions exist. It is the same as us saying, “Prove that it is not made in a
sweatshop.” They simply can’t.
It is precisely because we cannot verify how or where our ASU apparel is manufactured that we are
demanding that USAS and other students are demanding that the university move forward for the only
chance any school has for a proactive system that does verify that our apparel is something that we
can take pride in. I’d like to conclude with ASU’s own motto and ask us all to live up to it. – “Esse
quam videri.” To be, rather to seem.
Billy Schweig
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, senior sustainable development major
Theo Saslow
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
,
graduate Appalachian studies major
News should come from hand of student journalists
I write first to praise, then to chastise.
First, the praise: Congratulations on your recent “All American” rating from the Associated Collegiate
Press.
Now the chastisement: The Appalachian did the campus a disservice by publishing the lengthy editorial
piece “Noose Incident Leaves Questions,” written by a faculty member. Having been an adviser to
student publications at both the college and high school levels, it is my belief that the student
newspaper is just that – the “student” newspaper. It is not the “campus” newspaper. As such, all
reporting and editorial content should be done by students. To allow a faculty member to essentially
commandeer an entire section of the paper – even to defend a colleague – shows poor judgment on the
part of The Appalachian editorial staff, especially since the main themes in the editorial’s creed could
have been presented within the 250-word limit that your letters forum allows. The issues presented
could have then been explored further in a series of stories or op-ed pieces reported on by student
journalists.
As an African-American faculty member, I have many serious questions and concerns about the
occurrence of the “Noose Incident” and the issues regarding faculty. Some of these questions and
concerns overlap with those expressed by Professor Pratt. Others are more serious. However, I find
that excellent, ethical journalism emerges best when journalists – students or otherwise – uncover and
report on readers’ issues and concerns for themselves. After all, that is your job.
Dr. Calvin Hall
Assistant professor
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
University shows contempt for student body
I
am sad to see an institution like Appalachian State University, an
institution supposedly dedicated to expanding global awareness, take
such Gestapo tactics with its students. Last Friday, Chancellor
Peacock’s administration showed that it is willing to go to extreme
measures to silence criticism by sending police to arrest peaceful and
respectful student protestors. The actions displayed by the university
showed a great deal of contempt for the student body, who are indeed
the inquisitive and hungry minds necessary to keep a university alive.
Seeing as how the students are apparently expendable, I can only hope
the administration does not treat its hardworking staff and faculty in
the same disrespectful manner.
Chris Engler
Appalachian State alumnus
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Staff member responds to letter regarding noose
The following is in response to Dr. Cinthia Pratt’s letter to the editor published in the April 10 edition of The Appalachian.
I needed some time to thoughtfully respond to your opinion piece in The Appalachian. I have concerns
with what you shared. I am not addressing the incident. I was not present and anything I could share
about the incident would not be ethically appropriate. What I am addressing is what I learned from your
opinion piece. I learned that a faculty member had a noose hanging in his/her office for two years. I am
disappointed to think that a faculty member on this campus would not know that could or would be
intensely offensive. My understanding is a faculty’s office is the extension of the classroom. It is
provided for the work that we do as employees of this campus and employees of the state of North
Carolina. It is not an extension of our home.
I learned that you as a friend or colleague never once thought to say – “what message are you sending
your students or co-workers?” I learned that the faculty in the sociology department because so
accustomed to seeing a noose in an office that it never crossed anyone’s mind that it might be
offensive. I learned that you believe that we should have an opportunity to explain symbols – that this
noose was misinterpreted. What I know is that we assess symbols everyday and seldom do we stop
and ask why. It is a first impression, a quick glimpse to an individual’s character. Were you not
offended by women wearing Catholic school uniforms at The Library? Did you ask the owner to interpret
the meaning of the uniform?
A student walking by and seeing a noose in an office does not stop to ask what it means, anymore
than you did. They see it and make their assumption and move on. I have asked random students and
staff about what they would think if they saw a noose hanging, including my 14-year-old daughter, and
all thought about slavery, and/or the hanging of African-Americans/racism.
What I also learned is that you are a sociologist by trade. If there were a department on campus that
should understand the power of certain symbol and the impact they have on certain groups, it would be
yours. If any department on this campus should recognize the power of symbols it should be the
sociology department.
I am saddened that a student has been marginalized twice. Mistakes may have been made. I am not
confirming or denying that. It is my understanding that a university is a place to learn and grow. What
has this student learned? What have we taught our campus? Where has anyone apologized for the
harm this may have caused the students, faculty and staff who have no voice? Or who no longer use
their voice because they believe no one cares. I care!
Respectfully,
Judith M. Haas
Director of Student Conduct
Discrepancy found in recent arrests on campus
Does
anyone else find it interesting whom this administration chooses to
arrest? Students peacefully protesting in the lobby of a building, and
in no way interfering with the day-to-day business of the
university or harming anyone, are arrested for “disorderly conduct.” In contrast, students tearing down
the goal posts after a football game, causing property damage and often injuries, are smiled upon as
good examples of “school spirit.”
By arresting these students, the administration has embarrassed all of us. They have stated to the
world that our image as a football school matters the most to us, and that we do not want to be seen
as a place where students are politically engaged. Don’t even get me started on the irony of this
occurring even as the entire world comes down on China for its civil rights violations.
It’s not unreasonable to conclude that a primary motivating factor for these arrests was the Open
House weekend. I assume the administration thought parents and visiting high schoolers would be
dismayed to see protests on campus. Personally, I think that most high school students and parents
would see this as a positive sign that we have an active and engaged student body. I’d rather have us
admit students who are concerned about social justice than about whether or not we can win a football
game.
Do whatever you can to urge the university to drop any charges against these students. If not, who will
protect your right to speak out?
Dr. Norman Clark
Associate professor
Department of Communication
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trackback(0)
 |
|
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/Hide comments