University Times

By a 32-1 vote (with four abstentions), Faculty Assembly on Sept. 8 approved a two-part resolution supporting a boycott of Nabisco, to protest the company's plan to close its East Liberty bakery.

Part one of the resolution urged the University community to lay off the Lorna Doones, ostracize Oreos, banish Bubble Yum and otherwise quit buying Nabisco products — a move that health-conscious Assembly members suggested was in their best interest anyway.

The second part of the Assembly's resolution recommended that Pitt as an institution, both directly and through its food service vendors, stop selling or serving Nabisco products on any of its campuses or at any of its special events.

Contrary to at least one published report, Pitt's administration has not ruled out the latter move, Chancellor Mark Nordenberg told Senate Council Sept. 14.

Nordenberg said he has assigned Assistant Chancellor Jerome Cochran to study the feasibility and advisability of an institutional boycott of Nabisco products.

"We haven't really had a chance to discuss it at the senior administrative level," the chancellor said, emphasizing that there has been no "pre-emptive negative decision" by the administration to reject Faculty Assembly's request.

But one Senate Council member said the Assembly resolution was, in effect, crackers.

Economics professor Jack Ochs said: "As I read it, there was no important policy of the University that was at issue in this matter. As such, it was not appropriate to bring before the Faculty Assembly." Members of the University community already had ample outlets to protest Nabisco's decision to cease operations at its East Liberty plant Nov. 20, according to Ochs.

Prior to voting, Faculty Assembly should have canvassed the Pitt faculty to determine whether there was widespread support for the boycott, Ochs argued. Assembly members failed to do so, he said.

"To speak as the members of Faculty Assembly spoke was, in my view, presumptuous, unnecessary and, perhaps, unfortunate," Ochs said.

Education professor Mark Ginsburg, who proposed the Assembly-approved resolution, stood by his previous arguments for Pitt joining the boycott:

* Pitt is a large and important institution committed to positive relations with the community and to regional economic development.

Nabisco workers, their families and community groups supporting the boycott — including "people who don't always look on the University as a friend," Ginsburg said — all have expressed "sincere and deepfelt" gratitude to Pitt faculty for taking a stand on the bakery closing, Ginsburg told Senate Council.

* Prior to Assembly's vote, the Pittsburgh School Board unanimously approved a resolution stating that the school district would no longer purchase Nabisco products. Faculty organizations at Carnegie Mellon and Duquesne universities also are considering joining the boycott, Ginsburg reported. So it's not as if the Pitt Assembly's action was unprecedented or unsupported, he said.

* The closing itself was unjustified and smacked of union-busting. Even Nabisco officials have acknowledged that the East Liberty facility was among the company's most efficient. The closing will eliminate more than 350 well-paying jobs.

* Nabisco appears to be taking the boycott seriously. In an apparent effort to counter negative publicity, the company has taken out full-page ads in local newspapers praising its East Liberty bakery workers; also, Nabisco has begun mass mailings of discount coupons for its products locally, Ginsburg said.

Last week, Nabisco reversed a previous decision and permitted fact-finding tours of the bakery by a group seeking new buyers.

In response to Ochs's criticism that Faculty Assembly was unjustified in taking a public stand on the Nabisco closing on behalf of the whole Pitt faculty, Council member Phil Wion noted that the Assembly resolution was worded to make it clear that Faculty Assembly — not the Pitt faculty — was urging and recommending action supporting the boycott.

Ochs disagreed. "The plain facts are that resolutions passed by the Faculty Assembly or by the University Senate are interpreted by the media as expressions of the groups that the Assembly and the Senate are elected to represent," he argued.

University Senate parliamentarian Richard Tobias said it's up to the Senate president to judge whether an issue is germane for Assembly action, although Assembly members may appeal the president's decision. Senate President Nathan Hershey declined to second-guess the Assembly's vote. "It's a little bit late for me to voice an opinion on a vote that took place last week," Hershey told Senate Council.

–Bruce Steele