Liberation Theologian Jim Keady presented a documentary and speech condemning sweatshops, Nike in particular, in a packed Harper Auditorium last week.
Because of his presentation’s content and the attention it received, I feel obligated to tell the other side of the story on sweatshops.
Liberation Theology is a school of theology emphasizing economic social justice. Adherents believe big corporations like Nike, and the consumers who buy their products, are morally responsible for the suffering of sweatshop workers to whom the companies pay low wages.
I don’t think buying jock straps at a clearance sale makes you Jack the Ripper, but there is a point to be made about sweatshop working conditions.
I object to Keady’s presentation only because he provided no economic evidence for an alternative position and personally attacked his opponents.
His claim that the Bible favored his political viewpoints was faulty. In addition to condemning getting rich, there are Bible verses justifying stoning gay people to death (Leviticus 20:13), setting the monetary value of women at 60% of men (Leviticus 27:3) and treating shellfish eating as a grave evil and “abomination” (Leviticus 11:11).
Not to attack religion, but citing scripture to justify public policy results in the problem of having to cherry pick verses. I ate at Red Lobster this week, so I have a personal dog in this fight.
Political arguments should be secular and evidence-based in an inclusive, effective society.
Evidence suggests sweatshops give impoverished people far more pay and upward mobility than even grimmer local alternatives. 2008 Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman has said, “the overwhelming view among economists is that this kind [sweatshops] of employment is tremendous good news for the poor.”
By insulting the economists Krugman refers to as “white men” and “market fundamentalists,” Keady failed to credibly challenge a policy most economists support.
Nike sweatshop workers voluntarily chose their jobs over lower paying local factories and agricultural labor.
The vast majority of economists oppose fair trade regulations because they would force workers to take these lower paying jobs and cause more suffering and death of innocent people.
Particularly disconcerting at the lecture were the t-shirts Keady offered to Creighton students accusing Nike of slavery.
Before condemning Nike, it would probably be more polite to poll the people who actually work at their sweatshops and see what most think of their employers.
But in any case, I’d place a heavy wager that they wouldn’t appreciate U.S. college students implicitly calling them slaves.
And I’m not a gambling man.
Those interested in the sweatshop debate should read books by academic economists who’ve studied their effects, think for themselves and, regardless of their conclusion, reject the idea that this debate is a matter of God vs. the evildoers.