The protesting students were arguing that a proposed code did not go far enough to insure that the clothing would not be produced by sweatshop labor. The students want companies to tell them where the apparel is being produced. About 100 students at Georgetown University protested Friday on the same issue.
Last March, Duke adopted a code of conduct for its licensees. It was among the institutions that urged that a code also be adopted by the Collegiate Licensing Company, an Atlanta-based business that represents about 160 colleges, including Duke, in licensing deals.
The code that the Collegiate Licensing Company put forth was the subject of the students' protests. The company's code sets minimum standards for the factories that produce campus apparel but does not require disclosure of the location of the factories. John K. Burness, a Duke spokesman, said the manufacturers did not want that information becoming available to their competitors.
Mr. Burness said the university had, with reservation, signed the company's code. "We were concerned that it wasn't strong enough in two to three areas, but it was a significant improvement over where the C.L.C. had been before," he said.
Under the agreement that ended the sit-in, Duke signed a "contract" with the Duke Students Against Sweatshops. The university agreed to press the licensing company for a stiffer code over the next year.
The agreement says the licensing company's code is "flawed" and "disappointing," because "the lack of disclosure enables licensees to conceal factory locations, which makes it impossible to verify that monitoring has been objective and properly carried out."
If Duke fails to obtain a tougher code that would apply to all of the campuses that work with the Collegiate Licensing Company, the agreement says the university will negotiate a separate code with the company, work with a different company, or take other steps.
As protests go, this one was fairly tame. Duke officials said they agreed with the students' cause, if not their strategy. And administrators allowed students to remain just outside the president's office after the building had closed. When the protest started on Friday, about 90 students were participating, but that number dwindled to about 20. "They were in the outer lobby," said Mr. Burness. "We told them they could. We had a series of conditions, including that they had to clean up."
Of the students' cause, he said: "I don't think at any point have we had a disagreement with them on the objective. It was just on what the best way to get there was."
At Georgetown, student protesters called for university officials to reject the licensing company's code. Benjamin K. Smith, a senior in the business college and head of the Georgetown Solidarity Committee, which organized the protest there, said students presented the administration with petitions signed by professors and leaders of student government calling for the rejection of the code.
James A. Donahue, dean of students for Georgetown, said: "We have not signed yet, but we are intending to sign. We very much agree with the students about goals. We want to work to better the conditions of the workers who do make collegiate apparel, and we think the code is a good first step." But he added: "The code needs to be tested, and we need to have some experience. If after a two year period we don't feel it's effective, we'll reconsider our endorsement."
Background stories from The Chronicle:
Copyright © 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education