Your typical college sweatshirt isn’t just something comfy to wear to class, it’s also becoming a source of controversy in the fair labor debate.

In a March 26 article, “Administration discusses apparel-provider oversight,” The Pitt News reported on student activist groups meeting with Vice Provost and Dean of Students Kathy Humphrey to discuss changing the University’s affiliation with apparel-factory oversight groups.

Student members of Americans for Informed Democracy and other groups in the No Sweat Coalition met with Dean Humphrey last week. According to the article, AID President Viveka Mandava said that she and other students had previously met with Pitt administrators six months ago to discuss this issue. Although these students have stated their opinions and presented research, administrators have not yet made a decision.

Apparel-factory oversight groups use audits to monitor the working conditions in factories abroad, and Pitt is currently affiliated with an oversight group called the Fair Labor Association. While it is a non-profit, the Fair Labor Association is funded by universities, nonprofits and for-profit businesses like the companies that produce the college-licensed apparel. Because apparel-producing organizations provide funding for the FLA, students in the activist groups view this oversight group as retaining a conflict of interest. They proposed that Pitt change its affiliation to the Worker Rights Consortium, an oversight group that only partners up with colleges and universities and that the students argue provides more neutral factory oversight.

Hopefully Pitt administrators will make a decision as soon as possible. While it’s important to put thought, consideration and substantial research into a decision like this one, we hope that making a decision on this matter becomes a top priority for the Pitt administration. Choosing the most effective apparel-factory licensing group is extremely important to prevent abuse of workers, especially considering recent controversies of other universities’ licensed apparel brands. For example, Penn State recently suspended its contract with Adidas because an Indonesian factory was closed and the Adidas subcontractor did not give severance to workers who had been laid off, which is required by Indonesian law. Adidas claims it severed its business ties with the subcontractor in question six months before the independent owner decided to close his factory. With controversies like this one fresh on everyone’s mind, it’s important that we evaluate the most effective way to prevent fraud and abuse of workers, especially when they could be making clothes with the Pitt logo emblazoned on them.

It is also important for Pitt, as a large, influential nonprofit institution, to set an example for other organizations. A non-profit institution should be first and foremost concerned with fair labor practices in the production of their apparel and other goods, especially since turning a profit is already a non-priority for such organizations. Making a well-informed and thoughtful decision about which apparel oversight group to join will hopefully inspire other organizations to examine the labor practices of the companies that make their apparel.

Additionally, the student organizations that have spoken with the administration raise logical and well-researched points, and many student organizations, including our Student Government Board, are in favor of switching to the WRC instead of the FLA. If changing our affiliation would prevent a conflict of interest and help protect workers’ rights, then it’s in the best interest of the University community to do so.

Especially considering recent controversy, this issue is too urgent to postpone or ignore, and we urge administrators to consider the research and opinions of their students in making the best decision possible.