Cardinal athletes have long symbolized Stanford's quest for achievement. But recently some faculty members have asked whether athletes' uniforms should be quite so, well, symbolic.
For years, nearly every varsity player here -- and at scores of other universities -- has worn a uniform emblazoned with the Nike swoosh. Now that Stanford's contract with the sportswear maker is set to expire in June, opponents of the agreement have appealed for an end to the relationship, citing concerns about the company's labor practices and the commercialization of college athletics. Supporters argue that Nike and other apparel manufacturers fill a significant hole in the athletics department's budget by providing scholarships, clothing and expensive sports equipment for Stanford's athletes.
The most outspoken opponent of Nike on campus has been Rush Rehm, an associate professor of drama and classics. At a Faculty Senate meeting in November, Rehm, PhD '85, complained that "there's a swoosh in every shot," during televised college games. "Do we want to be in the business of advertising Nike?" he asked.
Rehm, who played football at Princeton in the early 1970s, asked Provost John Etchemendy, PhD '82, about new contract negotiations. "They have committed severe violations of labor and human rights," Rehm said to the provost at the Faculty Senate meeting. "Can't we get rid of this?" Several other faculty members joined in the Senate discussion, worrying aloud that the agreement overlooks possible objections of student-athletes who, as a matter of conscience, might not want to wear Nike apparel.
Ted Leland, PhD '83, director of athletics, says Nike and other apparel suppliers, including Champion and Speedo, contribute between $1.5 and $2 million annually to the department's $44 million budget. Less than a third of the contribution is in cash; most is in the form of shoes, jerseys and other equipment. About 200 colleges and universities have some sort of partnership with Nike, but only about a dozen, including the University of Texas, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Duke University, have contracts as extensive as Stanford's.
This latest debate comes less than a year after the University banned corporate advertising in most of its arenas, becoming the nation's first high-profile athletic program to do so. That decision costs Stanford about $500,000 in revenue annually.
But Rehm, pointing to allegations that Nike has sold products made by poorly paid subcontractors working in unsafe factories overseas, contends that the University should go further. (Nike says conditions and monitoring in overseas plants have been improved.)
President John Hennessy told the Senate that the University, rather than the athletics department, will lead the Nike contract discussions to remove any potential conflict of interest. "Over the long term, we will see if we can extract ourselves from having to use corporate sponsorship to keep our athletic teams on the field and correctly outfitted," he said. "But it will take us some time, realistically, to accomplish this."
