Georgetown's relationship with Nike has been the subject of repeated student protests due to wage and working conditions in the company's factories. In the late 1990s and mid-2010s, students conducted sit-ins at the university president's office to demand more rigorous monitoring of Nike's factories.
1990s Georgetown Solidarity Committee Protests
In November 1998, the Collegiate Licensing Company, which licenses school logos, published a code of conduct for apparel companies Nike and Champion. Although the code banned several abusive practices, it lacked a commitment to a living wage and disclosure of factory locations. Because of this, the Georgetown Solidarity Committee (GSC), a student organization dedicated to workers’ rights and social justice, urged the University to reject the code.1
In January 1999, Dean of Students James Donahue announced that the University would endorse the code for one year. The GSC responded with a protest rally and demanded a meeting with then University President Leo O’Donovan. Meanwhile, students at Duke University staged a successful sit-in at their Chancellor’s office that resulted in Duke’s endorsement of the new code on the condition that Duke clothing makers disclose their factory locations.2 The GSC followed with their own sit-in in President O’Donovan’s office. Twenty-five students remained there for eighty-five hours before the University conceded and agreed to their demands. The students demanded full disclosure of factory locations and the formation of the Licensing Implementation Committee (LIC), composed of University administrators, faculty, and students.3
The University also joined the Fair Labor Association (FLA), a monitoring organization composed of representatives from several large corporations. The FLA’s practice of certifying companies as “sweat-free” after inspecting only 5-10% of a company’s factories drew opposition from both GSC and the newly formed LIC. President O’Donovan rejected the LIC’s 8-1 recommendation to remove Georgetown from the FLA.4
2015-16 Protests
In 2015, after sweatshop activist Jim Keady visited campus, students formed Athletes and Advocates for Worker’s Rights (AAWR), a working group composed of student athletes and student advocates. The AAWR sent a letter to University President DeGioia opposing Nike’s business practices and asking the University to cut ties with Nike. The student athletes taped over the Nike logo on their University-issued sneakers with tape reading “#JustDoTheRightThing,” because they “refuse to be associated with a brand that is in direct opposition to Georgetown’s core values.” 5The letter highlighted Nike’s recent refusal to allow the Worker Rights Consortium, an international labor rights monitoring organization, access to Nike factories in Southeast Asia. Although a town hall followed, the University continued to contract with Nike.
In 2016, absent renewal, the University’s contract with Nike was set to expire on December 31. By mid-November, Nike had still failed to sign the University’s Code of Conduct for University Licensees which includes several clauses regarding labor standards, wages and benefits, health, safety, harassment, and abuse. GSC and Georgetown students renewed their efforts to raise awareness of Nike’s practices. For three days, students went barefoot in a “Better Barefoot than Nike” demonstration. Although they asked University administrators to take off their shoes in support, none did.6
Further Protests and Sit-In
GSC members elevated their efforts after the University had still failed to end the contract with Nike. On December 8, fifty students rallied in Dahlgren Quad before seventeen members staged a sit-in in President DeGioia’s suite of offices. The members hung a banner outside Healy Hall with the words, “Occupied Until DeGioia Cuts Nike” and chanted statements including, “Nike and Georgetown sitting in a tree perpetuating slavery.” 7Several students remained for thirty-five hours, after which the University administration agreed not to renew the contract with Nike unless Nike committed to allowing full, independent access to the Worker Rights Consortium, Georgetown’s preferred independent factory monitoring organization. Additionally, Nike had to either agree to sign Georgetown’s Code of Conduct for University Licensees or abide by a similarly strict code of conduct.8
Despite its concessions, the University sanctioned the eight students who remained in DeGioia’s office for the full thirty-five hours. By remaining overnight, the students violated the Student Code of Conduct’s ban on unauthorized access and failure to comply with a University official or law enforcement officer. Each student was required to pay a $50 fine, complete five work sanction hours, write a letter apologizing to President DeGioia, and be placed on disciplinary probation.9
In August 2017, the University signed a new licensing agreement with Nike. The new contract upholds the principles outlined in the University’s Code of Conduct for University Licensees and ensures that the Worker Rights Consortium has independent access to the Nike factories that manufacture college apparel.10
- 1Amend, Andy and Risen, Clay. “Looking Back at 1998-1999.” The Hoya. 4 May 1999.
- 2Id.
- 3Sullivan, Tim. “365 Days Later, Revisiting 85 Hours.” The Hoya. 8 Feb. 2000.
- 4Id.
- 5Puri, Ashwin and Okuniewska, Patricja. “Athletes, Advocates Pen Anti-Nike Letter.” The Hoya. 20 Nov. 2015.
- 6Subramaniam, Tara. “GSC Goes Barefoot to Raise Nike Contract Concerns.” The Hoya. 11 Nov. 2016.
- 7Santucci, Jeanine. “GSC Members Stage Sit-In in President’s Suite.” The Hoya. 8 Dec. 2016.
- 8Santucci, Jeanine. “Mediator Joins Nike Negotiations.” The Hoya. 31 Jan. 2017.
- 9Maher, Jake. “Student Protestors From Nike Sit-In Receive Conduct Violations.” The Georgetown Voice. 6 Feb. 2017.
- 10Burke, Lilah and Cobb, Caitlyn. “Georgetown Signs New Nike Contract After Ensuring WRC Monitoring Access.” The Georgetown Voice. 30 Aug. 2017.
