Philip H.

Knight (born February 24, 1938) is the co-founder and former CEO of Nike,
Inc.

Knight's 35% stake in Nike, Inc., has a recent net worth of $7.9 billion (US), which
makes him the 30th richest American.[1]

Knight stepped down as the company's CEO and President on December 28, 2004,
while retaining the position of chairman of the board. He was replaced by William
Perez, former CEO of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., who was in turn replaced by Mark
Parker in 2006.

Knight was named a "Corporate Crook" in Michael Moore's book Downsize This! in
1997. The book cited the harsh conditions in Indonesian sweatshops, where pregnant
women and girls as young as fourteen years old sewed shoes for factories that the
company contracted to make its products. Moore went to Knight in the hopes of
convincing him to fix this problem. That interview can be seen in Moore's film The Big
One – of the nearly 20 CEOs that Moore tried to interview for his movie, only Knight
agreed to speak with Moore.

Knight informed Moore that Nike does not own any of the factories that make its
products. Knight told Moore if he was willing to invest in and build a factory in the US
that could match the quality and price of footwear made overseas, Nike would consider
buying shoes from him.

Knight pledged in 1998 to impose more stringent standards for the factories that Nike
hires to make its goods, including minimum age standards, factory monitoring and
greater external access to Nike's practices.

Also in 1992, a group named Made in America called for a boycott of Nike products
because Nike shoes (like most athletic footwear) are made overseas, mainly in Asia
where labor is cheap. Nike has been criticized for its low pay and abusive treatment of
some workers. Using independent subcontractors, Nike makes many of its products in
Indonesia, a world pariah for its well-documented human-rights abuses. New York
Times columnist Bob Herbert has launched his own crusade against Nike. He accuses
the company of exploiting Indonesians while quietly encouraging the Suharto
government to crack down on dissent.

Made in USA“Help Create and Save American Jobs”

Promote Patriotic Spending
What is Patriotic Spending? Buying American made products and supporting companies/businesses that provide
and create American jobs. When you have a choice between buying a product that is Made In the USA or one
that is made elsewhere, that you chose to spend your American Dollars on the Made In USA product. Also you
support other businesses that are Patriotic Spenders and Support Made In USA.

Philosophy
Our philosophy is very positive and simple. Spending your American Dollars on American products saves and
creates American jobs. Every person/individual and every Dollar makes a difference, you make a difference.
Our belief is that an informed consumer will make the right choice and have their Dollars support American
Jobs. We believe that by encouraging Americans and the world to purchase products made in the USA that we
are ultimately securing American jobs.

Goal
Our goal is to provide you with opportunities to "Help Create and Save American Jobs" by having you become a
Patriotic Spender. To do this we will provide you with information, inform you on issues, and share specific
opportunities for you to "Help Create and Save American Jobs".
What is madeinusa.com
madeinusa.com is the doorway for the world to find U.S. manufactured products and services. Purchasers,
including business, individuals, and government, will be able to easily find products and services that support
the Made In USA mission and Philosophy. MadeInUSA.com is also a source of information so that people can
view the issues and participate in the discussion. We want you to be informed and to understand the issues so
that you can make choices and leverage the spending power that only you control. We also want to give you
specific opportunities to help, you make a difference.

Join The Team madeinusa.com Wants YOU.

What are the Issues

There is one central issue that madeinusa.com is focused on, that is American Jobs. You will find here a lot of
discussion regarding US jobs, their value and the impacts to the American way of life and standard of living.
But, there is no disagreement that US jobs are important to the viability of our country. It is our goal to inform
you, to present you with information, stimulate you to action, and most importantly give you a chance to use
your talents and resources to make a difference in America.

US Jobs are Important

The United States was founded on the opportunity to provide freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Today people still come to our country to pursue economic opportunities. But over the past few
years, due to various causes US job availability has decreased and the quality of jobs has gone down. Jobs
provide economic security for all of us. Jobs also enable Healthcare options and Retirement alternatives. Jobs
generate tax dollars that fund the widest range of Public Services in the World. Americans are also the most
generous Citizens of the World, supporting domestic and International causes that help the most needy. All of
this ties back to US jobs that provide us with the economic security and freedom to support our families and
communities. US jobs are important and each of us can make a difference in supporting our workers. Why Buy
Made In USA Every dollar you spend on Made In USA products and services helps secure a US job. Every dollar
that is then recycled back into the economy starts the multiplier effect of Patriotic Spending. By all of us shifting
a very small portion of our spending to US products we will collectively have a very significant impact. Never
before in American history has this issue been so important. All of the conditions are right for this grass roots
initiative to catch hold and become a change agent in the US economy.

Choice in Product Selection

We realize that there are some products that are no longer made in the Untied States. But there are over
400,000 manufactures that are here. We want you to shop with awareness, ask for American made products.
Look for, even search out, Made In USA products and services. Create change with your economic power of
spending. Together we will be heard, US manufactures will expand product lines and positive change will
happen.

Global Exchange
Global Exchange is an advocacy group and non-governmental organization, based in
San Francisco, California. It was founded in 1988, and funds itself through
memberships. Its stated aim is to promote human rights and social, economic, and
environmental justice around the world. It has worked to increase public awareness of
what it feels are the root causes of injustice, while also building international
partnerships. It attempts to address a wide range of issues ranging from worker abuse by
US companies to the US war in Iraq. It also maintains that the World Trade
Organization (WTO) undercuts consumer and environmental protections.

Global Exchange also gives reality tours to various countries of the world with the
stated aim of educating the visitor with the realities of living in different cultures.
Reality Tour locations include or have included Afghanistan, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,
Cambodia, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
India, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan and Syria, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Palestine/Israel, South Africa, Syria & Lebanon, Tanzania, Thailand, US, Venezuela and
Vietnam (Viet Nam).

Global Exchange has emerged as one of the pre-eminent NGOs against corporate
globalization. They have worked closely with many groups around the world in order to
promote "fair trade" goods to the public, such as shade-grown coffee from the Chiapas
region of Mexico, grown by members of the Zapatista movement EZLN. GX was also
forefront of the Seattle WTO protests, and in the interest of solidarity, brought members
of the EZLN to the protest.

Global Exchange works in close alliance with an increasingly well-coordinated

movement of NGOs (non-governmental organizations). Along with Rainforest Action
Network and The Ruckus Society, Global Exchange played a central role in organizing
the mass actions at the WTO (World Trade Organization) summit in Seattle in 1999. As
a member of the Our World is Not for Sale Network and the Citizens Trade Campaign,
Global Exchange opposes all free trade agreements including NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA,
and most economic privatizations.

Politically, Global Exchange has long campaigned in favor of freedom to travel to Cuba
and an end to the Cuban Embargo, and has also advocated for global regionalism as an
alternative to corporate globalization and embodied in the Bolivarian Revolution of
Venezuelan President Chavez and Bolivian President Morales. In regards to the Israel &
Palestine conflict, it supports the implementation of human rights and international law
on both sides. While it deems any violence towards civilians as tragic, it views the
continued Israeli Occupation as the root of the conflict and driving force behind the
cycle of violence. It opposes the United States presence in Iraq and any sanctions and
military action against Iran - advocating for dialogue rather than further demonization.

Recently, Global Exchange has made possible the Green Festivals in San Francisco and
Washington D.C., which bring together fair trade merchants, with environmentally
responsible and otherwise progressive companies to showcase their goods and services
to consumers. Chicago will host its first Green Festival in 2007.

The Global Exchange Store encourages the principles of socially and economically
responsible business by selling products according to Fair Trade Criteria in an online
store and stores in San Francisco and Berkeley in California, and Portland, Oregon.

Global Exchange is a coalition partner of Energy Action a coalition of more than 30

organizations from across the US and Canada, founded and led by youth to help support
and strengthen the student and youth clean energy movement in North America.

Global Exchange in partnership with Rainforest Action Network and The Ruckus
Society runs the Freedom from Oil Campaign advocating a reduction of America’s oil
consumption, claiming this will help to reduce oil related conflicts and to stop global
climate change. The campaign aims to convince the auto industry to dramatically
improve fuel efficiency and to eliminate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

As part of their campaign to reduce oil consumption, on November 29, 2006, two
protesters from Global Exchange at the Greater Los Angeles Auto Show walked onto a
press stage where General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner was speaking and tried to get
him to sign a pledge making GM the most fuel-efficent car company by 2010. Wagoner
refused to sign, saying that he promised just that in his keynote speech

Fair Labor Association

Why the FLA? The growth of the global economy has outstripped the mechanisms for regulating
labor rights around the world. In principle, governments should adopt ILO Conventions and
incorporate them into national labor laws enforced by labor inspectors. Trade unions and
employers should negotiate collective agreements to fix wages and working conditions at sectoral
or firm level and workers should have recourse to internal grievance procedures or external labor
tribunals. In practice however, many of these protections have broken down. The FLA initiative is
designed to complement international and national efforts to promote respect for labor rights.

Participants The FLA represents a multi-stakeholder coalition of companies, universities and NGOs.
There are currently 20 leading brand-name companies participating in the FLA. These are adidas
AG, Asics, Eddie Bauer, Drew Pearson Marketing, GEAR for Sports, Gildan Activewear, H&M, Liz
Claiborne, Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC), New Era Cap, Nordstrom, Nike, Outdoor Cap,
Patagonia, Phillips-Van Heusen, PUMA, Reebok, Top of the World, Twins Enterprise, and Zephyr
Graf-X. These companies have committed to a rigorous program of Workplace Standards
implementation, monitoring and remediation in order to bring their manufacturing sites into
compliance with FLA standards.

Colleges and universities join the FLA to promote fair and decent conditions in the production of
goods bearing their logo. To date, there are over 194 colleges and universities affiliated with the
FLA. These schools require their licensees to participate in the FLA licensee program.

Human and labor rights advocates and organizations continue to play an integral role in the FLA
system. The NGO Advisory Council of the FLA, facilitates the involvement of local and international
NGOs to help ensure that the implementation of Codes of Conduct ultimately results in worker
empowerment and the meaningful protection of workers' rights.

• Subject: Goodbye, Roberta: The CBS-Nike Connection

• From: Robert Weissman
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:31:42 -0500 (EST)

CBS News reporter Robert Baskin has a problem -- she's not getting along
with her boss.

In October 1996, Baskin broke the story of Nike's labor practices in

Vietnam on CBS investigative program "48 Hours." Baskin traveled to
Vietnam, talked with young women who make Nike shoes and heard tales of
physical abuse, illegally low wages and long working hours.

Now, Nike is sponsoring CBS Sports' coverage of the Winter Olympics from Nagano.

Earlier this month, CBS News reporters covering the Olympics appeared on
screen wearing the CBS logo on the left side of their parkas, with the
world-famous Nike logo on the right.

Baskin hit the roof and on February 6, 1998 sent out a two- paged,
single-spaced memo to executives throughout the CBS News hierarchy.

"As far as I could remember, in my 20 years in television journalism, it

was the first time a network news organization had allowed its
correspondents to double as billboards," Baskin wrote.

Baskin alleged that her boss, CBS News President Andrew Heyward, vetoed
last July's scheduled rebroadcast and update of her "Nike in Vietnam"
investigation.

"I urged 48 Hours executive producer Susan Zirinsky to change Andrew's

mind," Baskin wrote. "Zirinsky told me she overheard new Vice president
Jonathan King talking with Andrew Heyward, discussing a letter Nike had
sent to the head of CBS Sales, expressing concern over the relationship
between Nike and CBS at the Winter Games. I assumed it meant Nike probably
was going to be a prime sponsor of CBS's Olympic coverage at a cost of
millions of dollars and that Nike's concerns had to do with my report."

Baskin said that over the past year, she has suggested follow-up reports
on Nike's labor practices when news warranted, but was told no.

Baskin said that she also wanted to respond to a Wall Street Journal op-ed
attacking her reporting on the issue, but she was told she couldn't.

"Last night, when I saw CBS correspondents adorned with the Nike 'swoosh,'
it became clear to me why Heyward had spiked all follow-up reports on my
Nike investigation and blocked my reply to the criticisms printed in the
Wall Street Journal," she wrote.

In a two-page "Dear Roberta" letter, Heyward professed that he was

"shocked" and "amazed" at Baskin's "intemperate message."

"Your circulation of allegations of this kind to virtually the entire

senior staff of CBS News without first having discussed them with me is
not only a shocking breach of professional etiquette, but entirely
unacceptable," Heyward wrote.

Heyward said he is "instructing all CBS News correspondents in Japan to

ensure that the Nike logo is not visible when they appear on the air."

Heyward said that he nixed Baskin's reply to the Wall Street Journal op-ed
piece because "I felt your proposed letter assumed a tone of advocacy that
was journalistically inappropriate." He said that the decision not to rerun Baskin's original Nike
piece "hadabsolutely nothing to do with Nike's relationship with CBS." Heyward denied spiking
other news stories on Nike.

"The simple fact is this, Roberta," Heyward lectured. "There is no

connection whatsoever -- NONE -- between Nike's sponsorship of the Olympic
Games or any other CBS program it might sponsor and CBS News coverage of
the Nike story.

Heyward said that Baskin's sending of the memo was "reckless and
irresponsible."

But Heyward's huffing and puffing does not change the simple fact that CBS
employees are still acting as Nike billboards.
For while CBS News reporters might no longer be allowed to wear the Nike
"swoosh," CBS Sports said its reporters will continue to wear the "swoosh"
on their parkas.

"Yes there is a deal," said Dana McClintock, a CBS Sports spokesperson

said from Nagano. "We can't disclose the terms of the contract, but Nike
is paying CBS and we're wearing the logo."

McClintock said that sports reporters promoting a sponsor's product "have

become part of television sports."

"During the last winter Olympics, reporters wore the logo of NorthFace,
and NBC reporters have worn the logo of ProPlayer," McClintock said.
And that is part of the deal, isn't it? That's what commercial television
is about -- bowing down to the almighty corporation.

People like CBS reporter Roberta Baskin who have the gall to question the
practices of Nike and other global corporations will be shown the door.
Goodbye, Roberta.
A Critique of Nike's Labor and Environmental Auditing in Vietnam
as performed by Ernst & Young
by Dara O'Rourke, Transnational Resource and Action Center (TRAC)
November 10th, 1997

Dara O'Rourke is a research associate at the Transnational Resource and Action Center
(TRAC), and a consultant to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO) in Vietnam. His research focuses on strategies for preventing adverse environ
mental and social impacts of industrial activities. He has been conducting research in
Vietnam for the last three years. Mr. O'Rourke has worked as a consultant to the United
Nations Environment Programme, the World Bank, and the U.S. Environmental Prote
ction Agency. Mr. O'Rourke has a Bachelors degree from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Mechanical Engineering and Political Science, and a Masters degree from
the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. He is c urrently
completing his Ph.D. at Berkeley.

What Ernst & Young Missed

In my interviews with employees, I was given information about numerous violations of

Nike's Code of Conduct that were not discovered by the Ernst & Young audit. I was
informed that managers of Tae Kwang Vina have:

• Violated Vietnamese labor laws on maximum overtime hours. Night-shift workers in

the stitching section told me that their "standard" work week is 10.5 hours per day,
six days per week. This basic work week can lead to 700 or more overtime hours per
year, well over the legal maximum of 200 overtime hours per year.;
• Forced overtime. Workers complained that they have no choice in whether or not
they work overtime. Workers are told one day in advance that they must work
overtime. If they "choose" not to work overtime more than twice, they are likely to
be fired .;
• Violated Vietnamese labor laws on pay. Tae Kwang Vina is required to pay increasing
wages based on workers' skills. Workers at skill level 1 should be paid the minimum
wage ($40/month) times a multiplier, skill level 2 should be paid $40 times a hi gher
multiplier, etc. One staff member told me the company ignores this legal
requirement, giving annual salary increases much lower than required.;
• Broken strikes. Tae Kwang Vina management have repeatedly threatened to fire all
workers who wouldn't return to work during strikes over the last two years. An office
staff member explained that "managers investigate who incited the action, and don 't
fire them, but make them change jobs, and treat them very badly until they quit.";
• Physically and verbally abused workers. I was told numerous stories about managers
hitting workers. Reportedly, in one case the director of security hit a Vietnamese
guard. In another case, a manager hit several women workers with a broom while tr
ying to force them to leave the factory in a single file line.
• Sexual harassment. Several workers told me that a Korean manager allegedly
attempted to rape two women workers last year, and then fled the country. This was
widely reported in the Vietnamese press.9 Independent monitors on the ground in
Vietnam wou ld have been aware of this case and would have followed up on these
issues.

Tae Kwang Vina is the most technically advanced of Nike's subcontractors in Vietnam,
and according to Nike is no worse on labor or environmental issues than the other four
Nike factories in Vietnam.10 In fact, Tae Kwang Vina received the highest score of
Nike's five factories in Vietnam in a self-assessment procedure.11

The serious omissions and biases in the Ernst & Young findings point out the
weaknesses of using accounting firms to audit labor and environmental practices. These
auditors are not trusted by workers, and their findings are never submitted to public scru
tiny. If Nike genuinely wishes to improve the conditions inside its plants, it would, as
the saying goes, "Just Do It." The company should make public all of the internal audits
conducted to date. This would shed light on current conditions in its plants, and increase
the public's belief that Nike is making a good faith effort to improve.

Clearly only well-trained, independent auditors can perform the types of audits that are
needed in Nike's factories. As The New York Times admits, a better alternative to
accounting firms would be "local, truly independent monitors who speak the language ,
can make unannounced visits and enjoy the trust of a largely young,
female...workforce." Labor, religious, or human rights groups that pass an accreditation
program would be the best candidates for this job.

Ambassador Young
Evaluates Nike's Code
By Louis Corrigan (RgeSeymour@aol.com)

Atlanta, GA (June 30, 1997) On June 24th, former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young
presented results of a four-month long investigation of NIKE'S (NYSE: NKE) Asian
shoe factories. The former civil rights leader found "no evidence of widespread and
systematic abuse of workers," despite some well-publicized recent cases of
mistreatment. Hired by Nike to conduct an "independent" assessment of whether the
company's overseas manufacturers were living up to the company's expectations, Young
concluded that Nike was "doing a good job" in the application of its Code of Conduct,
but that the company "can and should do better."

The report is likely to bolster Nike's efforts to reassure consumers and shareholders
alike that it is not operating sweatshops. Unfortunately, it will probably do little to
assuage Nike's critics, who have assailed Young's report for failing to address the issue
of low wages -- particularly since compensation is one key component of Nike's Code.

Phil Knight hired Young's newly formed GoodWorks International consulting firm to
"find the truth" last January. Knight promised Young "blanket authority" to go
anywhere, see anything, and talk with anybody connected to Nike. He also agreed that
Young's report would be made public. The most important aspect of his inquiry
involved visits to 12 factories: four in China, four in Vietnam, and four in Indonesia,
including those factories considered both the "best" and the "worst" based on the
independent audit reports. He spoke with randomly selected employees and often
lunched with a factory's labor representatives, workers, or management. He also spoke
with some of the 56 women at one Vietnamese plant who were forced by a manager to
run laps around the factory as punishment for failing to meet a production goal.

Young did not write off the incidents at this one Vietnamese factory entirely. As a
multinational, Young stated that Nike and similar companies that chose to operate in
countries without mature trade union movements or any tradition or understanding of
the concept of "workers' rights" faced enormous challenges. Young suggested that in his
view, "the responsibility for protecting the workers must fall increasingly on the[se]
large companies ... [T]his means that Nike -- and its competitors -- must pro-actively
take steps that contribute to the creation of systems and processes that protect its
workers in these contract factories." To this end, Young suggested that Nike take more
aggressive steps to enforce its Code of Conduct, making clear to subcontractors that
they may lose the company's business if they fail to live up to these standards.

For his part, Young said he was not asked by Nike to evaluate wage levels at the
company's factories and, indeed, noted that such a complex exercise was beyond the
technical capacity of his small firm. Still, as a lifelong supporter of trade unions, his
"heart and sympathies were with the workers" and he believes that "minimal global
wages and standards are desperately needed." On the other hand, he doesn't think it's
particularly constructive to single out a few highly visible and successful companies as
the culprits. "[M]eaningful reform can only be achieved through national law or
international standards that enforce a 'level playing field' for all companies, not just a
few." He said that work on minimum wage standards was better left to organizations
like the International Labor Organization.

Who is USAS?

USAS - United Students Against Sweatshops - is an international student movement of campuses and individual
students fighting for sweatshop free labor conditions and workers' rights. We believe that university standards
should be brought inline with those of its students, who demand that their school's logo is emblazoned on
clothing made in decent working conditions.

We have fought for these beliefs by demanding that our universities adopt ethically and legally strong codes of
conduct, full public disclosure of company information and truly independent verification systems to ensure that
sweatshop conditions are not happening. Ultimately, we are using our power as students to affect the larger
industry that thrives on sweatshops.

What are the conditions of sweatshops like?

But the garment industry has largely moved overseas to avoid what laws and wage levels the U.S. does manage
to enforce. And throughout Central America, the Carribean, and South-East Asia, the picture is very grim.

A particularly pertinent report on conditions is that UNITE - the garment workers union of the AFL-CIO did on a
factory in the Dominican Republic that makes University of Michigan baseball caps. What they found was forced
overtime, sex-discrimination in wages, unsafe working conditions, very low wages, and union busting.

Also interesting is the National Labor Committee report on a Nike factory in El Salvador, alongside its recent
exposes of just what a Nike code of conduct means on the ground. And not long ago a group of students
accompanied the National Labor Committee and produced their own report on labor conditions in the region.

Who is the Fair Labor Association?

Lately many industry players have been pushing the Fair Labor Association (FLA) as a "solution" to the problem
of sweatshops, but it is a weak code that fails to provide for women's rights, a living wage, the full public
disclosure of factory locations, or university control over the monitoring process. It is more corporate cover up
than industry reform. For these reasons and others the United Students Against Sweatshops and SOLE have
opposed universities joining the FLA.

Are we asking companies to move their production back to the US?

NO! We believe that workers in developing countries deserve jobs that will actually contribute to development,
not create a cycle of impoverishment and abuse, as sweatshop jobs do. So, we are asking US companies that
produce in other nations to help improve working conditions in their factories, not move production.
Let Nike Stay in the Game
By Bob Herbert
Columnist, New York Times Editorial Desk
May 6, 2002

As much as it pains me to say it, I am not in favor of stifling the speech of the loud and
obnoxious and terminally exploitative Nike Corporation.

California's highest court ruled last week that the First Amendment did not shield Nike
from a lawsuit that claims the company was guilty of fraud and false advertising
because it asserted that its overseas factories were in compliance with applicable wage
and safety regulations.

Now there is no doubt that Nike has wrung billions and billions of dollars from the toil
and the sweat and in some cases the physical abuse of impoverished workers -- mostly
women -- in places like China and Vietnam and Indonesia. In the wretched sport of
global sweatshop exploitation, Nike -- like its nonpareil pitchman, Michael Jordan -- is
an absolute champion. It has no peer.

But the very same First Amendment that allows me to make these assertions about Nike
must also allow Nike to defend itself. In the California case a man named Marc Kasky
filed a lawsuit that accused the company of violating the state's laws against unfair
competition and false advertising because, in Mr. Kasky's view, Nike did not always tell
the truth when it described conditions in its overseas factories.

Specifically, Nike has denied that workers who make its products are physically or
sexually abused, that they are underage, that they are underpaid, that their working
conditions are lousy, and so on. Some of Nike's assertions are true and some, I have no
doubt, are false. But I don't believe that a company responding to public allegations that
have become the focus of a major international debate should have to face local
consumer fraud charges and the possibility of severe financial penalties because some of
its assertions in the course of that debate turn out to be false.

Last Thursday the California Supreme Court ruled otherwise. It held, in a 4-to-3
decision, that Mr. Kasky could proceed with his suit. The court ruled that Nike's
statements regarding the labor practices and working conditions in the factories
amounted to "commercial speech," designed to "maintain and increase its sales and
profits," and thus were not entitled to full First Amendment protection.

If the ruling stands, it will almost certainly make some companies reluctant to
vigorously defend themselves in the court of public opinion. That is not a good thing.

The treatment of workers who manufacture goods and provide services for the great
international corporations is one of the most important and contentious issues in this era
of globalization. Whatever one thinks of Nike, it is a crucial participant in this
continuing debate. As one of the dissenting justices wrote, "The public at large, in
addition to Nike's actual and intended customers, has the right to receive information
from both sides of this international debate."
That said, it's truly ironic that Nike, a big bully of a corporation if there ever was one, is
seeking the protection of the First Amendment in this fight. Nike has never been shy
about trying to pressure publications into tempering their criticism of its empire.

A few years ago Nike's chief executive officer, Phil Knight, even came to The New York
Times to complain angrily -- and to no avail -- about the columns appearing in this
space.

In 1997, The San Francisco Examiner managed to embarrass itself by refusing to run a
column by one of its longtime staffers, Stephanie Salter, because it was, in the paper's
view, too critical of Nike. Editors spiked the column at the same time that the paper was
hard at work on an arrangement to have Nike co-sponsor a major Examiner promotional
event.

In a real democracy, even the people you disagree with get to have their say. Nike will
likely appeal last week's ruling and the case could make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Whoever hears this matter next I hope will recognize that this is not a case about unfair
competition or false advertising. Nike, in response to very serious allegations on a
matter of compelling public interest, issued press releases, contacted top officials at a
number of colleges and universities, wrote letters to various editors and otherwise
attempted to make its case.

In the United States of America that kind of speech, even if it is not always accurate,
deserves unyielding protection.