Table of Contents

Earlham College has a long line of powerful, creative, dedicated and effective social activists. Often the results of their labor shows up and extends far beyond when they were at Earlham. Because students do not document their efforts, their work may go unknown. Even during changes initiated by students, many people are unaware of the cause (such as President Bennett’s recent "proposal" that Martin Luther King, Jr. day should be used as a day to discuss race/racism came from students [see below]). This can lead to feelings of powerlessness and ineffectiveness. It is easy enough for activists to feel they are not effective when their long-term goals are not reached. Nevertheless, it ought to be clearly understood that students have made major impacts in the running of the college, its practices and its values.

Students make a range of contributions to Earlham College in departments, administration, faculty decisions and student life. This glimpse into a few events is far from complete or representative. It is not a historical account and some of the stories have had to come through that oral tradition so common at Earlham. I believe it also represents a series of cases, snippets and stories that are not often shared; understanding our successes allows us to see what works and to recognize our deep impact. As one reads each case, it may be useful to recognize that the students involved did not know that they were going to succeed as much as they did and to see some of the choices that they made that were useful. And if you find this document somewhat useful, document your own stories, too!

One place to begin is from a major successful campaign that reached one stage of completion last year (1999-2000). For many years, LGBTQA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning and straight allies) students had been asking for sexual orientation to be included in the Community Code and the public non-discrimination policy. In 1999, a new version of Principles and Practices was approved by all members of the community (faculty, staff, students, administration and Board of Directors), which (also influenced by students) added sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy. Students recognized that though the Principles and Practices mentioned sexual orientation, there was still a discrepancy between it and the non-discrimination policy used by the college on job offerings.

To work on this gap, Rainbow Tribe created petitions and got signatures from members of the student body. This raised awareness and discussion within the community, including discussions in Committee on Campus Life (CCL). Rainbow Tribe and CCL members still talk about their shock and extreme surprise in then receiving an official statement from Earlham’s Board of Directors last year saying: "The Board reflected on Earlham College’s official (legal) non-discrimination statement in light of last June’s approval of ‘Principles and Practices of the Earlham College Community,’ and decided to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination statement." For those involved, this acknowledgement represented a long, drawn-out victory.

The decision to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination policy was not an easy one for the Board, made up of some members from very conservative Quaker persuasions. It had some dire and painful consequences, including strongly worded reprisals from supporters, directed at Earlham President Doug Bennett. This included harsh letters from Yearly Meetings stating their "disappointment and dismay in the direction that Earlham College is taking." Students and faculty especially had been urging for several years to add sexual orientation to its policy; this decision was very much the result of years of such activist work.

A loose group, that at various points was an official student organization of Earlham but received no funding for most of its existence, was called the Student Direct Action Coalition (SDAC). One of its focuses during the late 90s was Nigeria, where companies were engaging in serious human rights violations. Companies, especially oil companies, would enter into Nigeria and, creating incestuous relationships between the government, take oil from the country at low-cost and with no environmental or labor precautions. As a result indigenous peoples, especially the Ogoni people, were dislocated from their land, experienced severe negative environmental affects and, when they were willing to speak up for their rights, swift and violent repression. The people had therefore asked for a boycott of companies involved in Nigeria, particularly Shell, one of the biggest companies in Nigeria.

The Student Direct Action Coalition joined with hundreds of other groups and people to boycott Shell. One direction it tried to take, but was unsuccessful with, was trying to influence the Investment Responsibilities Committee (IRC) to remove stock in Shell and other companies involved in Nigeria. It also ran a couple of leafleting campaigns outside of local Shell stations to raise the issue.

Another connection that SDAC members realized between Earlham College and Shell was having Shell gas cards in Earlham vehicles (in the blue pouches). Though not a planned action, after returning from a trip with the vans, a student cut up the Shell gas card in one of the vans. The student, and another out spoken SDAC member who stood with the individual’s actions, were required to help Housekeeping (who takes care of the vans), who was very offended by the action, as a form of punishment. Nevertheless, after the action it was decided that Shell gas cards would be removed from all Earlham cars (although left in Earlham vans, as back up). As far as I am aware, both this and Shell’s practice continue.

In 1999, the anti-sweatshop movement was growing. Nationally companies such as Nike, notorious for its sweatshop practices (forced overtime, below living wages, etc.) were trying to figure out responses. One response they made, along with US President Clinton’s Apparel Industry Partnership (AIP) and a few nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), was the creation of the Fair Labor Association (FLA). The FLA would monitor companies’ practices and assure that they were not violating the set standards. The FLA, called the FLAW by members of groups fighting for workers rights such as the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), was so incomplete and had so many loopholes that it was considered meaningless except to be a shield from criticism. At the same time, there was a push by USAS and other groups for organizations to create Codes of Conduct, agreements that contractors with colleges (especially) made assuring basic rights.

On campus that year was a very outspoken member of USAS and a member of the Campaign for Labor Rights (CLR). Both organizations were strongly opposed to the FLA. One or two articles were written on sweatshop issues raising student-body awareness.

Meanwhile, Kumar Sathy, the member of USAS, tried to convince the administration to create a Code of Conduct to screen major sweatshop violators by presenting a draft of a Code of Conduct. Kumar reviewed the drafts of other colleges and universities and created a draft specific to Earlham College and presented it to the Earlham Socialist Alliance (ESA). Realizing that the code should not just be written by an individual or an individual organization, he sent out invitations to meet with the on campus Amnesty International, ESA, Indigenous People’s Movement (IPM), Student Direct Action Coalition (SDAC) and Earlham Environmental Action Coalition (EEAC). About twenty students from these various organizations met in the Community Action Center (CAC/The Center) and ran through the draft and line by line suggested changes.

When he proposed the Code of Conduct to President Doug (this was Kumar’s first meeting with Doug), he was told the document was too rigid and that the language was not Quaker enough. For a while he tried to fix its language to be more in-line with perceived Quaker testimony. Kumar had asked Doug how he should proceed with this issue and how to best contact Doug in regards with this matter. Doug then briefly showed Kumar how to write a memo.

In an attempt to make sure the President did not choose the FLA in the meantime, Kumar requested a position statement. President Doug promptly responded to this memo with a packet in Kumar’s mailbox. Attached to a thick compilation of documents about the Fair Labor Association was a note stating that though he was not able to provide Kumar with a position statement regarding the Code of Conduct draft, he would share some information about an organization that he was inclined to join (the FLA).

Several letters were sent to the President requesting that the President not join the FLA, particularly without more dialogue around the issue.

At the end of the year in the last Word article, before the Quaker-friendly version of the Code of Conduct was finished, the President explained he had been talking to Kumar Sathy and announced that the College would be joining the FLA. After reading the article, Kumar ran into the President’s office only to find that he was on a business trip. He attempted to make an appointment however the President’s schedule was full. He went home and received a phone call from Dipti Banrawal who voiced her apologies for the way that the President responded to this matter. She had learned about the response from e-mails that Kumar had been sending out to various on-campus organizations (including the Peace and Global Studies [PAGS] alumni/ae list as well as on-line responses to the President’s Word article). Dipti, after hearing that Kumar could not schedule an appointment with the President, said that Kumar could use an appointment time that she had already made.

At the end of the school year, students mobilized. Bright posters were put up across campus saying, "No FLAw zone" and other such phrases. Sit-ins were seriously discussed at several points (some members regret not doing it). Kumar and Leah Robshaw wore capes that they had painted with the words "I don’t support the Fair Labor Association."

About eight students met with Doug. At the beginning of the meeting, they started by voicing their disappointment in this process and in the decision that Doug had made. Doug responded by saying something to the effect of, "If you want me to withdraw from the FLA, then that’s what I will do." Though the Word article had said "we will" affiliate, this statement regarding withdrawal led the students to believe that Doug had already joined the FLA. Doug said that he would hand the issue of sweatshops and college apparel to the IRC committee (which, as we may remember, was originally created out of student concerns around divestment from South Africa in the 90s).

Over the summer, Kumar requested that Doug send him a copy of the withdrawal letter. Doug sent him the withdrawal letter that indicated that the President had officially affiliated and sent in funds to join the FLA.

The next year an organization called the Worker’s Rights Consortium (WRC), more in line with student’s concerns, was created internationally. Kumar Sathy, along with other students, persuaded the IRC to consider joining the WRC and ignore the FLA. After many months of discussion Earlham College agreed to join the WRC, which had serious protection for worker’s rights and a serious set of monitoring procedures. The President later admitted to Daniel Hunter, who had only been remotely involved, that he had made a mistake in the handling of the issues of Codes of Conduct. He never did the same to more involved members.

[More to be added later.]

[More to be added later.]

Another success where student impact was invaluable showed up in a recent convocation by Doug Bennett entitled, "Race Matters at Earlham" (9/5/2001). The fact that President Bennett was talking about race at that time, for example, was very much related to student’s raising issues during the previous years in Word articles, a People of Color Day of Silence, Minority Student Speak-out, pressure on the Diversity Aspirations Working Group (DAWG) and several individual meetings with Doug Bennett.

The "proposal" that Doug Bennett made to use Martin Luther King, Jr. day as a day to discuss race was and is not a new idea. For numerous years, members of Black Leadership Action Coalition (BLAC) have been urging for MLK day to be recognized as a holiday and for students to take it off. Nate Williams, one member of BLAC, had specifically suggested to BLAC and to the President’s office that the day be recognized as a holiday last year. In place of classes, he and a line of other students had proposed teach-ins and workshops on racism and other forms of oppression should be done in the spirit of Dr. King’s life work. Bringing Fred Shuttlesworth to speak on MLK day 2000 was one attempt at making that a reality.

The addition that Doug Bennett put together of creating a space for students, faculty, staff and administration also came out of student concerns. Last year students had asked such meetings to take place at several points as a way to increase communication. In fact, students had organized a Communications Circle in which students, faculty, and administration were invited. During the Communications Circle, students raised a variety of concerns, which the administration was asked to address. Among the concerns was that a meeting with the wider Earlham community (faculty, staff, administration, students) was not a regular part of the Earlham experience.

Students can affect the institution by their ability to suggest ideas and organize alternative institutions until they become institutionalized. Student unrest included a protest called the People of Color Day of Silence, in which students who identified as persons of color were silent all day and passed out flyers. This kind of pressure, along with Word articles asking for a larger Multicultural Affairs budget and students talking to Doug Bennett, helped set the agenda which resulted in a near doubling of the Multicultural Affairs office’s direct budget and money sources being found elsewhere, too. Even the original creation of the office has strong links to student concerns and activism. Likewise, the Multicultural General Education requirement (MRI) was a suggestion by students from the Multicultural Alliance in a 1997 list of demands and encouraged by students within committees.

Earlham student activism has resulted in a variety of environmental policies and changes at Earlham. For example, an "environmental program currently in place by Sodexho-Mariott is the "To Go" containers — containers made for taking out food from Saga. For many years, Sodexho-Mariott purchased styrofoam "To Go" containers [approximately 58,500 per year!], allowing students "on-the-go" to eat a meal out of Saga. Due to strong influence by the Earlham Environmental Action Committee (EEAC), these styrofoam containers have been replaced with reusable plastic containers as of the 1998-99 school year. The system is set-up such that each student receives a free sturdy, plastic container (originally purchased by Earlham College). Students then come with a used container and exchange it for another, clean container. The dirty containers are washed, as per health regulations, and used again."

This project was one of the earlier such projects in the country, and one of the first in the Sodexho-Marriott chains of college dining services. Students began conversations with Kathie Guyler, manager of the Sodexho-Marriott dining services at Earlham. After working with her and, most likely, the food review committee, students convinced Kathie Guyler to try the experiment on a short-term basis (how they convinced Earlham to make the initial investment in plastic containers is a good question). After the students graduated, the short-term experiment was deemed a success and it became a regular institution at Earlham.

Students are also fully responsible for the recycling program at Earlham College. Student-initiated, student-run, student researched and student-powered, the recycling program has been trying to figure out how to institutionalize itself better for several years. The recyclable market fluctuates such as in 1995 when Rumpke Recycling refused to accept paper or cardboard due to a lack of demand in the Midwest, making the job harder for students. Since then students helped get copy machines and computing centers across campus to make use of both sides of white paper as a way of reducing waste.

Students, backed by the Earlham Environmental Action Committee, have run the recycling program every year since its inception many years ago. Students have recycled literally tons of various materials: paper, glass, plastics, cardboard and more. As students, even small groups, raise issues it can change outcomes (such as when one student helped the new social science building to be Green Star compliant by researching what it took and then suggesting it to one of the building’s committee members). While not being content with where the recycling program is, one can recognize that a part of becoming part of the Earlham institution (and thus run by administration and staff) is proving that it can function effectively, which students have done.

Other successes that have their roots in students and student pressure include:

When we look around at our campus, so much of it has been influenced by students. To keep it going and to make it happen takes the work of more than just students, and for us to think we did it on our own is deceptive and wrong. But students, who can agitate for change with few harmful consequences, come in every four years with very new ideas and new energy. Our energy, our excitement and our passion helps direct the next steps for Earlham College. Without a long-term vision, we may miss how much we can affect. Yet, it is student insight that often has determined the next steps for Earlham, even though others may get credit for those steps. As we learn to tell our own success stories, we may find we had more power than we thought.