As the Christmas spirit took hold last week, UAF students, faculty and staff were buying goods from campus stores. They might not know it, but much of the apparel sold on campus comes from nations whose human rights standards are much lower than those in the U.S.

UAF sells t-shirts made in El Salvador, rain jackets from Burma, pink tops assembled in Mexico, hockey jerseys made in Guatemala, and teddy bears made in China.

Whilst some students were purchasing apparel for gifts last week, other students took a step back and researched into the realities of the clothing sold in the campus stores as part of a nationwide monthly campaign to support student stores stocking ethical products. It has yet to be proven that UAF apparel is made under unethical conditions, but according to research by the Independent Institute, 80 percent of apparel factories in third world nations do not live up to the United Nations Human Rights criteria. They also found that more than half of the population in most of the developing countries stated to have sweatshops lived on less than $2 per day.

"It's a joke how much of UAF's clothes are made in developing conditions," said Eli Sonafrank, a geography major. "The most ironic thing is that Alaska Grown clothes are made in China and Honduras. I dread to think the conditions they are made in. It's Christmas time and I don't want to think about a malnourished 12-year-old Indonesian girl wrapping the sealing on my present," he said.

Sonafrank is already supporting one of the only Alaska clothing companies, Apocalypse Design, outdoor gear that is designed, constructed and proven in Alaska in the hope that other organizations will take heed.

"I do not want to be supporting clothing companies which produce their clothes in third-world sweatshops," said Finely Bock, an earth science major. Finely gave some statistics on the most famous brands.

"In China, workers making shoes for Nike are paid 16 cents per hour (living wage for a small family is about 87 cents), 11 to 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, which equates to 77 to 84 hours per week," Finely said. "Workers are fined if they refuse overtime, and they're not paid an extra rate for overtime hours."

Stories like these are common when we hear talk about sweatshop plants in the developing world. We hear worse, too-terrible stories about women and children tricked into bondage, of union organizers getting beaten or killed, of terrible working conditions, long hours, and no bathroom breaks.

Critics say sweatshops are a way for international corporations to exploit the poverty and desperation of the third world, while allowing them to circumvent the living wages, organization rights, and workplace safety regulations that labor activists have fought for in the west.

Anne Gagne-Hawes, who works in the student activities office, said that these factories are here in the U.S. too."Even today, sweatshops have not disappeared in the United States," she said. "They keep attracting workers in desperate need of employment and illegal immigrants who may be anxious to avoid involvement with governmental agencies." Recent studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor found that 67 percent of Los Angeles garment factories and 63 percent of New York garment factories violate minimum wage and overtime laws. Ninety-eight percent of Los Angeles garment factories have workplace health and safety problems serious enough to lead to severe injuries or death.

Gagne-Hawes said that this research is part of something bigger:"For UAF to unite with other universities across the nation to persuade university administrators at dozens of colleges around the country to refuse to buy school apparel from companies who use sweatshop labor." The students demand that corporations pay a "living wage," and agree to international monitoring or face the loss of collegiate licensing privileges, which amount to some $2.5 billion in annual revenue for the likes of Nike, Reebok and Fruit of the Loom.

United Students Against Sweatshops, an international network of student labor activists, has developed a new plan for colleges and universities to require licensees such as Nike, Reebok, Adidas, and Jansport (which is sold in the UAF store) to exclusively produce collegiate apparel at "sweat-free" factories. USAS defines sweat-free as those factories in which workers' rights to organize are respected and workers earn a living wage. Next semester, students at 40 major colleges and universities will be demanding that their schools accept responsibility for the improvement of wages and working conditions for the garment workers who produce their college logo t-shirts, sweatshirts and caps.

"Students are uniquely positioned to create such change, as they have already won tremendous victories forcing colleges and universities to adopt codes of conduct," said Raymond Owen, a philosophy major. According to the demands, universities would be required to source apparel from factories who have demonstrated respect for workers' associational rights, as evidenced by the presence of a legitimate, active representative body. The brands would additionally be required to pay increased price to supplier factories in order to enable workers to negotiate a living wage. The Worker Rights Consortium, an independent monitoring organization with 144 college and university affiliates in the United States and Canada, will enforce and monitor this policy.

"We know that it won't be an easy ride", Raymond said, "but we firmly believe that the rights of people must take precedence over the drive for university licensing fees and corporate profits. Despite tremendous opposition, student power has already won major changes in the global garment industry, and this is the next step in our fight for worker justice."