Campus Clothing: What is the True Cost, and Should You Care - Essay Example

Prof’s Campus Clothing: What is the True Cost, and Should You Care? Clothing is one of the things, possibly along with coffee production, that inspires a great deal of concern among consumers regarding working conditions. This is because clothing is one of the few things in an industrialized world that still requires incredibly high amounts of human labor – a human can always make a shirt better and cheaper than a machine can. This led many multinational companies to export their work to countries with lax labor loss where they could have what often amounts to essentially slave labor. Backlash against this has caused some improvements, but probably not enough. One of the most important college experiences, for many people, is being able to pick up some college clothing: sweatshirts, pants, hoodies, athletics apparel and so on that are emblazoned with a college’s name and colors. There is a debate about the degree to which a college is responsible to ensure the working conditions of those who work in the factories that supply their clothes. There are many sides to this argument. Some would say that it cannot be a college’s responsibility: they are too far removed from the production of clothing to be able to ensure working conditions are enforced, for instance, the responsibility should be with the people actually producing the clothes, not the college as a reseller. Furthermore, some would argue, the college’s main responsibility is generating income through clothing sales, and keeping prices as low as possible for those who want to buy the clothing. This, however, is untrue. Firstly, the principles espoused above are not defensible logically speaking: if one always allows a consumer to deny responsibility for the working conditions of a producer, nothing will ever change. It is the responsibility of colleges to ensure that their suppliers have good working conditions in garment manufacturing, however, there are few that actually do so. This paper argues that Marymount’s apparel is supplied by a wide variety of manufacturers with varying working conditions, that there is very little awareness of those conditions on campus, and that this must change if worldwide working conditions are to change. Marymount’s apparel is provided by a wide range of different suppliers, each with their own particular set of working conditions and standards. Jeffrey Messman, the sports information director, agreed to an interview with the present author about the background of apparel on campus. Messman indicated that there are a wide variety of different partners that help to produce Marymount apparel, including Puma, Nike, and Underarmor, depending on the needs of a particular group. There is a systemic selection process, according to Messman, that takes into account the quantity of materials needed, prices being offered, previous history with a particular vendor, quality of the garment and the material that the garment is made of. Each of these manufactures has a long history of using sweatshop labor, though some are worse than others. Even though Nike, for instance, has been improving conditions in factories generally, there are still frequent news stories about abuses in various factories where Nike employees are underpaid and overworked, often working in terrible and dangerous conditions (Shayon). Working conditions at the university’s suppliers are not very good, and the wide variety of partners in giving the school clothing help ensure that it is difficult for the school to follow up on any particular company’s practices. Marymount has a wide variety of vendors with indifferent working conditions at best, but very few members of the student body or faculty actually seem to care very much about that fact. Firstly, in the interview with Mr. Messman, he did not list working conditions in production plants something that was considered when selecting garments for athletic apparel, so clearly this is not a very high priority for the athletics department. To ascertain the degree to which other staff and students engaged with the production of clothing, the author conducted an interview with the campus book store’s manager, Matthew, and then conducted a survey among twenty students. During the interview, Matthew indicated that the clothing sold in the campus book store was produced in a variety of places, including Honduras and Vietnam (both places without a reputation for good working conditions). When asked if he knew anything at all about the working conditions in the production facilities, he said that he did not. Clearly campus book store’s apparel decisions are made along the line of athletics: quality, price etc. are much more important than the working conditions of those who actually work to create the clothes. The survey of students showed similar results. When students who own Marymount apparel asked if they cared where the clothing was made, only one out of twenty indicated that they did care – and they said they would only care if “the product was overpriced” (Survey). Put another way, if working conditions are terrible, the students at least want to be able to get the savings passed on to them and not the university or the apparel producer. Interviews with both staff and students show consistent disinterest with the working conditions of people who make Marymount apparel and athletics gear. This, however, is not acceptable behavior. Consumer pressure is one of the only things that can force a garment manufacturer to change their practices: they often operate in areas where people are so desperate for a job that they will work any job possibly given to them, and with governments where the governments are so afraid of restricting business through regulation that they would never pass any law that might help workers. Thus only consumers can make real change, by being aware of the working conditions of those who are creating the products that they use. If the entire world was so cavalier about these issues, then sweat shops, indentured servitude and slavery will be global norms rather than being exceptions to the rule. Importantly, there are excellent alternatives to the practice of buying from questionable producers. American Apparel, for instance, makes all of its clothing in America, in the downtown Los Angeles region, under excellent working conditions (Americanapparel.com). Yet despite all of this care put into their working conditions, American Apparel clothing is comparably priced to Nike. Finally, as a place of higher education, Marymount should hold itself to exceptionally high moral standards. This makes any accidental support of sweatshops even more disturbing. So, due to the logic of how important consumer awareness is, and the fact that easily accessible, reasonably priced alternatives are possible, and the fact that Marymount should hold itself to the highest possible standards, it is completely unacceptable that the university does not put more energy into ensuring the workers who create its apparel are justly treated. Marymount, like all colleges, has a wide array of clothing lines. Also like many colleges, it supports these through a wide variety of different vendors, each of which have their own particular working conditions – though all of Marymount’s vendors tend to have very poor conditions. Despite this, Marymount staff and students are profoundly disengaged with the fact that they might be supporting sweatshop labor, a condition that is completely unacceptable to such a proud school. Works Cited "American Apparel | Fashionable Basics. Sweatshop Free. Made in USA." American Apparel | Fashionable Basics. Sweatshop Free. Made in USA. American Apparel, 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. . Messman, Jeffrey. "Athletics Interview." Personal interview. 28 Nov. 2012. Matthew. "Bookstore Interview." Personal interview. 28 Nov. 2012. Shayon, Sheila. "Nike Better World? Not For Converse Factory Workers in Indonesia."BrandChannel.com. The Brand Channel, 2011. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. . Read More