Eleven Stanford University students were arrested at 4:30 p.m. today after occupying the lobby of Building 10 since 11:30 a.m. in a protest over university apparel made in overseas sweatshops.
The students were not told what they were being charged with, one of them told the Weekly via cell phone.
The students were told at 4:20 p.m. that they had five minutes to leave the building or they would be arrested, said Alan Acosta, director of university communications. He said the students chose to stay.
The students were taken to the university's Department of Public Safety where they were to be cited for trespassing and then released, Acosta said.
The students had initially occupied Stanford President John Hennessy's own office by using "a ruse" to gain entrance beyond the Building 10 lobby, said Jeff Wachtel, senior assistant to the president.
Hennessy was not on campus.
The administration "is in complete agreement with the students' objectives," Acosta said before the arrests were made.
"We can't wait to end sweatshops," senior Mark Liu declared. "Human rights are being violated every day."
The students initially occupied Hennessy's office but agreed to move to the building's lobby when asked to.
University officials allowed the small group of students to stay but kept about 100 other students outside. The students said they felt they had "hit a dead-end" in talks with the administration.
Wachtel said a meeting has been scheduled for next week between the students and Hennessy.
"Things move more slowly for students than they would like," Wachtel observed.
"It's important to know we've been meeting with the administration for three months," sophomore Bethany Woolman said of the occupation. She said they were trying to maintain a positive attitude.
"We're here to support the president to make the right decision," she said. "This institution has a lot of power to make a change in the world."
Plainclothes police officers were inside and outside of Building 10, not letting anyone inside during the afternoon.
About 100 students gathered outside Building 10 shortly after noon carrying banners and signs, one of which read, "Make Stanford apparel sweatshop-free."
Another read, "Don't dress to oppress." Two men wore no clothes at all.
The students are asking that Stanford join a "Worker Rights Consortium" that monitors sweatshop conditions. A reported 169 colleges and universities have already joined the consortium, including the entire University of California system. A second group also monitors sweatshop conditions, but students favor the consortium.
"The president is actively considering joining these groups," Acosta said. "We are in complete agreement with the students' objectives."
"The question is how best to achieve that," Wachtel added, referring to meeting the objectives.
Comments
another community
on May 22, 2007 at 11:52 pm
on May 22, 2007 at 11:52 pm
When a factory raises its labor standards, apparel companies abandon it. The solution? Pledge only to contract with companies that order from factories with decent labor standards. This is what Stanford students are asking the university to do. Dozens of schools have already signed on to the WRC and DSP monitoring programs. These students have a solid proposal and are running a great campaign!
Midtown
on May 23, 2007 at 6:10 am
on May 23, 2007 at 6:10 am
Will the lives of those sweatshop workers be better when the students get their jobs cancelled?
Palo Verde
on May 23, 2007 at 9:55 am
on May 23, 2007 at 9:55 am
It's sad to see the university officials appease these Marxist rowdies.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 23, 2007 at 10:20 am
on May 23, 2007 at 10:20 am
Moral issue or no moral issue, if I were a parent paying that kind of tuition and room and board, I've written my last check. In California state schools, a parent doesn't get the report card if the student is an 'adult' - eighteen and over. My stance was, if I don't see the report card, I don't pay the next semester's tuition, room and board and fees,. Take it or leave it. And no bail money either for stunts like this. I always got the report card and all graduated.
another community
on May 23, 2007 at 10:46 am
on May 23, 2007 at 10:46 am
While I do not condone sweatshops or child labor, what makese these well-to-do, BMW driving, latest cell-phone brandishing students think they understand reality? I have seen many a children in Indian sweatshops earn a decent living, support their families, and even work their way through school. Of course, stories of bonded and abused child laborers aren't uncommon either. If one isn't addressing the two critical challenges of child labor: short-term income & long-term prospects, he/she is doing more harm than good by merely 'protesting'.
Is 'protesting' just a fad these days? Or, is there a heart-felt motive? I really wonder.
Palo Alto High School
on May 23, 2007 at 11:00 am
on May 23, 2007 at 11:00 am
Good point, Chandra. How many of these protestors are working towards their MBAs? Perhaps they could direct their energy, education & talents toward initiating change and solving the underlying problems. It'd certainly be a more constructive use of their skills.
East Palo Alto
on May 23, 2007 at 3:53 pm
on May 23, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Since Stanford is a university with no tuition, I think the people who would have "written their last check" are way off base. Don't you want your children to engage with the world and use their voices and priveleges as US citizens to speak out against great injustice with compassion? If we sit idly by and enjoy our non-sweatshop jobs while others suffer, doesn't that make us morally reprehensible? Would Jesus fight against sweatshops and child labor the way he railed against the moneychangers at the temple? I think so.
In a free society, nonviolent protest has an important function: to remind the citizenry that not everyone enjoys the peaceful, affluent society we do, and to help pull for a better standard of living for all human beings across the world. The Civil rights movement and others have all made great strides for equality, and much of it was done in the spirit of Ghandi's nonviolent resistance. We will only be safe from terrorism when the whole world is free and has enough to eat.
Instead of assuming that all Stanford students are wealthy, cell-phone toting future business people, you might ask yourselves: What am I doing today to help? How am I fighting against intolerance, injustice and bigotry in my daily life? How can I be a part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem? How can I avoid rushing to judge other people before I have all the information, and how can I give everyone around me the benefit of the doubt and show loving kindness and compassion to all I come in contact with?
Then you might actually be doing something useful instead of passing judgement on young people trying to do their best in an often mean world.
East Palo Alto
on May 23, 2007 at 5:03 pm
on May 23, 2007 at 5:03 pm
For clarification, Artemis, I should point out that Stanford is tuition free only for graduate students. Undergrads pay on a need-based sliding scale. This means that while some Stanford students are wealthy, you do not need to be wealthy to attend Stanford and not all Stanford students are wealthy. While Chandra's stereotype of the BMW-driving Stanford student may describe some students, THOSE ARE NOT THE STUDENTS WHO GO TO PROTESTS! What the protesters did showed courage and dedication, and deserves respect.
Palo Verde School
on May 23, 2007 at 5:26 pm
on May 23, 2007 at 5:26 pm
What the Stanford students did was to forcibly occupy buildings. This is a form of violence. These students deserve no respect.
Midtown
on May 23, 2007 at 5:42 pm
on May 23, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I recall when Japan undersold American manufacturers because of their lower wages. Now their wages are on a par with ours because they had a chance. These students, well meaning as they may be, are denying the bottom rung of the ladder to those who have no other hope. It would be nice, however, if these students could protest slave grown chocolate. They might even learn something that has apparently slipped by in their classrooms.
another community
on May 23, 2007 at 11:29 pm
on May 23, 2007 at 11:29 pm
In response to Artemis:
First of all, I appreciate the dialogs here. If you were to conduct a survey tomorrow, you'll find that my so called 'general assumptions' are grounded in reality.
I do ask myself everyday:
"What am I doing today to help? How am I fighting against intolerance, injustice and bigotry in my daily life? How can I be a part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem?"
I contribute by doing my bit at the grass-roots, not by protesting in front of Macy's or Louis vuitton. How can you be sure that as a result of the university canceling the apparel contract, livelihoods of already impoverished folks won't be stolen? How? If someone can prove to me that these protests have a farther reaching impact and actually help the long-term cause, I'll gladly join in. I've seen first hand the challenges faced in these developing and under-developed countries and if you don't smell, breathe, and live the problem, it's unfortunately hard to fathom a solution. Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate your feelings and intent; it's just that I know better coming from the trenches. I spend a fair deal of my time (not nearly enough, I admit) helping God-like people who work with these kids day-in day-out. They run orphanages, free schools, free clinics, industrial training. Why not help by helping these warriors?
Midtown
on May 23, 2007 at 11:56 pm
on May 23, 2007 at 11:56 pm
The idea that third world countries are developing economically and sweatshops are a stage in their development (like Japan) is just plain wrong. Using this analogy shows your ignorance. The differences between the Japanese economy post-WWII and current global south manufacturing economies are so great that I don't know where to begin.
Stanford
on May 23, 2007 at 11:59 pm
on May 23, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I know some of these students. They are not from wealthy backgrounds. They have suffered and struggled in their lives, and that's why they are working on this issue, because they have empathy.
The students who are MBAs stay far away from these protests, believe me. They write mean things on message boards about them.
another community
on May 24, 2007 at 12:05 am
on May 24, 2007 at 12:05 am
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
The students are asking Stanford to only contract with manufacturers that have decent labor standards. This is accomplished through an independent monitoring group that investigates factory conditions.
another community
on May 24, 2007 at 12:07 am
on May 24, 2007 at 12:07 am
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
another community
on May 24, 2007 at 12:12 am
on May 24, 2007 at 12:12 am
Walter: I don't understand what you're saying. Stanford is going to be employing just as many workers as before in the global south to make its clothing. The difference is that these workers will actually be able to live on what they make, not get cancer from the illegal chemicals they're exposed to, not get killed for trying to form a union etc. Because over 100 schools are already doing this, the labor standards will rise across the industry. I hope this clears things up for you.
Palo Alto Hills
on May 24, 2007 at 12:14 am
on May 24, 2007 at 12:14 am
We live in conservative times. A simple sit-in is decried as violent occupation. Sheesh.
Fairmeadow
on May 24, 2007 at 12:18 am
on May 24, 2007 at 12:18 am
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Stanford
on May 24, 2007 at 12:52 am
on May 24, 2007 at 12:52 am
FYI Stereotypists:
I am a student at Stanford University who is paying only $5000/yr because that is all my family can afford. I went to an elementary school where most of the population were probably undocumented, even some of the youngest children, because their parents had come to the US in hopes that they could make better wages and give their children a better chance at a bright, EDUCATED future.
Sadly, the community they ended up in, that I lived in alongside with them, could not give them the kind of education and opportunities that some of those BMW, cell phone toting "Stanford" students you "noted" have. Admittedly, even though I am at Stanford University now, I did not even know that the University then. I did not know anything about Stanford University until my sophomore year in high school. THAT is an example of the "outreach" we were given.
I am at Stanford to rectify this wrong.
Not all of us are trust fund babies here. Some of us are here to make a difference in the world that you take for granted. Admittedly some of my peers side with the "stereotypists" that what we did was pointless, but can't you see that if you don't take a stand, make a bold statement, or even a "pointless" action, NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN! Is that the world you wish to live in?
I have to say no. I have said no and I will continue to support the campaign, nay-sayers keep on neighing...
Barron Park
on May 24, 2007 at 1:33 am
on May 24, 2007 at 1:33 am
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Midtown
on May 24, 2007 at 6:35 am
on May 24, 2007 at 6:35 am
So when the sweat shop raises its wages and is priced out of other markets and the workers lose their jobs? Except for the chocolate plantations you all ignore, no one is forced to work in a sweat shop, and sweat shops pay the going wage.
And Kim, a sit-in is a denial of the right of others to go about their way, and is close enough to violent to necessitate violent put down. The 33rd word is peaceably. Free speech does not guarantee an audience.
another community
on May 24, 2007 at 6:47 am
on May 24, 2007 at 6:47 am
I certainly will shut up after this comment. Not sure how my comments came across as mean spirited. CLT, my sincere apologies to you. I probably generalized a bit much. I was just one of those kids living on one of the many giant mountains of garbage you describe, that's all. I saw the good in people - people willing to roll up their sleeves and work with us in the dirt & smell. I respect all of your comments and I apologize if any of my words hurt any of you. But, my mind is very clear on what works and what doesn't.
I reiterate: Help by addressing both short-term income & long-term prospects.
thanks for listening and have a great day.
Palo Alto Hills
on May 24, 2007 at 11:10 am
on May 24, 2007 at 11:10 am
You can't negotiate when the other side has all the power. That's why civil disobedience exists. Do you not believe that people had the right to sit-in at lunch counters for desegregation?
How did students deny the right of others to go about their way? They sat in the lobby and did not block any doors or passageways. You are calling a very minor inconvenience (what, being forced to look at students sitting on the ground?) a violent action.
And the audience was not the administrators, it was the media. You and I both heard about it, so they were effective.
Palo Alto Hills
on May 24, 2007 at 11:10 am
on May 24, 2007 at 11:10 am
the previous comment was a response to Walter
another community
on May 24, 2007 at 11:14 am
on May 24, 2007 at 11:14 am
Walter: READ THE VERY FIRST COMMENT. No one loses their jobs. This is the brilliance of the WRC and the designated supplier's program. It actually PREVENTS the dislocation that occurs when factories close down because companies find a cheaper factory. And it raises standards across the industry.
Also, you are mistaken if you believe sweatshop conditions are in any way acceptable. Just because it is not slavery or it is the "going rate" doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
another community
on May 24, 2007 at 11:19 am
on May 24, 2007 at 11:19 am
Chandra: I understand now where your response is coming from. Your feelings were just misdirected, that's all. These students are on your side, and relatively speaking, have experiences more similar to yours than most other students at Stanford.
Midtown
on May 24, 2007 at 9:56 pm
on May 24, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I am well aware of what sweat shops are - in the 30s and 40s most jobs here were like that. If you raise the cost of operation, the sweat shops lose out to cheaper manufacturers, unless you are willing to purchase the total output of the mill, in which case they will probably fire half their workers and sub out the work. No one is forced to work in sweat shops the way slaves are forced to work in chocolate. It is their best bet.
another community
on May 25, 2007 at 12:03 am
on May 25, 2007 at 12:03 am
Walter let me explain this a little more- the program students are advocating for restricts companies from abandoning factories for cheaper ones-
The organization which the students are asking the administration to partner with, which is called the Designated Supplier's Program, is designed to address concerns of job loss and relocation. (Although it should be noted that job loss happens all the time, on a giant and destructive scale, in the current globalized garment industry because corporations search for the cheapest labor, and its constantly changing geographically) The idea behind the DSP is that the University, in partnership with many other universities nationwide who have already signed on to the DSP, will pressure corporations, lets say Nike, to only contract with factories that abide by a certain code of conduct when it comes to producing Stanford apparel. The catch? These factories must already be factories that Nike is contracting from. So Nike will actually be requested to fund the upgrades in these factories, and continue contracts with them for a set period of time. The idea is to slowly improve the conditions in these places while working WITH corporations like Nike— all powered by the influence of consumer morals.
more info: Web Link
Midtown
on May 25, 2007 at 5:25 am
on May 25, 2007 at 5:25 am
Owen, what would you do if you were asked to figure a way around this cartel? California used to have Fair Trade laws, where merchants could go to jail for selling a product below the designated price.
another community
on May 25, 2007 at 9:41 pm
on May 25, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I don't understand what you're saying
Midtown
on May 26, 2007 at 3:56 am
on May 26, 2007 at 3:56 am
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]