Present at the Compromise
by Clay Risen

It's déjà vu all over again. Just when it looked like the campus protest was a thing of the past, three recent sit-ins at three different campuses have brought tears to the eyes of '60s nostalgics and wanna be radicals across the country.

All three sit-ins — at Duke, Georgetown and the University of Wisconsin-Madison — protested the universities impending signatures on a code of conduct governing labor standards in factories that manufacture their athletic apparel. All three attacked the code for not providing factory locations or guaranteeing living wages.

At Georgetown, the sit-in lasted 85 hours, ending only when students and administrators agreed the university would drop manufacturers who failed to disclose factory locations. They also set up a committee of students, faculty and administrators to oversee manufacturers progress.

Being a student reporter Georgetown, I got a first-hand perspective on the protest, and more importantly, the protesters themselves. Talking to students involved, it was warming to hear them talk about their concern for human rights and to see them taking action about it.

But what was most interesting was not that there was a protest at all, but rather just how normal the whole thing seemed. Think sit-in and you think free love, marijuana and tense confrontation with the "establishment." Not here. These students did their homework, not pot. They chatted and played games with the campus police officers. After it ended, they shook hands with administrators and called for "reconciliation" and teamwork.

One of the protest's organizers, Ben Smith, told me he was very concerned that people would see the protest as some sort of '60s counterculture throwback (it doesn't help when the sit-in was organized by a group called the Georgetown Solidarity Committee). "I'm for open markets, I'm for the free flow of capital," he said. "This is not a liberal/conservative thing, but a right or wrong thing."

No one would slight these students for their attitude; it doesn't take a reactionary to argue that the excess of the '60s was as much a problem for social activism as it was a motivator of it. This time around, the administration is not the enemy, nor is capitalism; as Smith said, ideology has no place in this debate.

But while the '60s may be a lesson in excess and unrealistic radicalism, these students may have gone too far the other way in an attempt to prove their mainstream credentials, they agreed to a deal which in the end has no real enforcement, just the university's promise. Georgetown President Leo O'Donovan, S.J., was conspicuously not present from the signing rally, an important absence seeing as how he is the one who in a year will have to decide whether to drop Nike and Champion, two of the school's most important corporate relationships.

If it comes down to that, it's not inconceivable that Georgetown or Duke or Wisconsin, for that matter will drop the compromise. They'll cite "extenuating circumstances," betting students won't try another sit-in. Most of these students will have graduated anyway, and things will start all over again. But this will happen only if these students — vigilant enough to occupy the president's offices — are also vigilant enough to put aside their worries about being labeled "radicals" and "anti-establishment" and pressure their universities to uphold their end of the bargain.

E-mail Clay Risen at risenc@yahoo.com.