Politics

Military Recruits Still Not Using American-Made Sneakers

Published

9 years ago

July 3, 2015

In this photo taken Wednesday July 1, 2015, workers, under ultraviolet light, apply cement to the midsole of the military tested New Balance 950v2 sneaker before the outsole is attached in Boston. New Balance is pressing the Pentagon to buy American-made footwear for the troops instead of sneakers from rival Nike that are made in China. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia)

PHILIP MARCELO, Associated Press

BOSTON (AP) — New Balance thinks the U.S. military is dragging its feet.

Last April, the Department of Defense announced military recruits would start using athletic shoes 100 percent made and manufactured in America, in recognition of a law Congress passed in 1941 requiring the department give preference to American-made goods.

Over a year after the announcement, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have still not purchased a single sneaker that meets the exacting standards of the 1941 law, known as the Berry Amendment.

Matthew LeBretton, New Balance’s vice president of public affairs, is convinced the delays are deliberate “payback” for companies like New Balance that have been vocally lobbying for the change for years.

“We’ve pushed and pushed to the point where we’re at now, and we’re still encountering tremendous resistance,” he said. “They’re not used to being pushed that way and I think that’s engendered this animosity.”

Mark Wright, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, said the department is simply continuing to test Berry-compliant sneakers.

“We’ve moved right along since the new policy went into effect last year,” he said. “I don’t think this is being slow-rolled at all. We’re trying to respond to the needs of our forces.”

To date, one variant of Boston-based New Balance’s proposed 950v2 sneaker has passed the military’s testing, after a previous version failed last year. Two other styles of the same shoe — covering the different foot and gait types that the military requires shoe companies offer — are still being tested.

No other shoe brand appears to be going through the testing; Saucony, another Massachusetts-based footwear company, said it’s developing a sneaker that eventually could be considered for military use.

Matthew Priest, president of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, doesn’t believe there’s anything nefarious going on, despite New Balance’s concerns.

“The military is a bureaucracy like any other agency in the federal government,” he said, stressing that his association is remaining “neutral” in the fight because some of its members benefit from the policy change while others don’t. “Things just take time.”

Others see the delays as concerning.

Catherine Michael, spokeswoman for the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said the “sluggish and drawn-out process” is preventing domestic shoemakers from hiring and retaining U.S. workers for their factories.

U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas, a Massachusetts Democrat whose district includes one of New Balance’s five American factories, said the Defense Department needs to step up.

“There have been signs of movement in the approval process, but it is time for (the department) to make more significant progress and reconcile what they perceive as challenges to moving forward,” she said.

New Balance and Saucony suggest part of the problem lies in an inefficient testing regimen.

Wright said the process involves an inquiry to assure that all shoe components are sourced, made and assembled in the U.S., followed by a “wear test” that lasts roughly 90 days in which soldiers put them through the paces and then fill out a report on how they felt.

“We know it won’t change overnight,” said David Costello, a spokesman for Wolverine Worldwide, Saucony’s parent company. “The wheels of government tend to move slowly.”

Frank Kendall, an Under Secretary of Defense, said in a March letter to Tsongas that the tests are being done one shoe type at a time because of a limited number of testers. He expects evaluations of New Balance’s three shoe variants to be done by September.

LeBretton said the testing is the most protracted the company, which is already the sole provider of sneakers for the Navy, has ever been involved in.

The U.S. Coast Guard, he notes, has already moved to comply with the Berry Amendment even though it doesn’t fall under the Pentagon’s revised policy.

The Coast Guard, which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, recently tapped New Balance, which it had a previous contract with, to provide thousands of American-made sneakers for its recruits.

“It’s mind-boggling,” LeBretton said. “It certainly highlights that there is this institutional slowdown” at the Pentagon.

Wright, of the Department of Defense, stresses the military is committed to honoring the “spirit” of the Berry Amendment even as it maintains sneakers are technically not part of a soldier’s officially issued uniform and shouldn’t be subject to the rule.

Currently, most recruits are given a one-time voucher to purchase sneakers at military supply stores that have met certain standards. Among the brands offered recruits are Asics, Brooks and New Balance.

New Balance and its supporters maintain the Berry Amendment should still apply, whether or not the military “issues” the sneakers or gives recruits a stipend to purchase them. “The bottom line is that the law is the law and the military needs to follow the law,” LeBretton said.

At New Balance’s factory in Boston, plant manager Tim Luke said the company remains at the ready.

It’s already invested in new equipment and training and begun ramping up production of “tens of thousands” of pairs of its Berry-compliant model.

“There’s a huge pride factor in this. We recognize where these shoes are going to go,” Luke said during a recent factory tour. “By now, we have the process completely defined and refined so when the chance finally comes, we’re ready to go.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Hispanic Leaders Want GOP Field to Condemn Trump’s ‘Idiocy’

Don't Miss

In Candid Speech, Republican Rick Perry Makes Appeal to Blacks

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Speaks on Democracy at Commonwealth Club

Based on his first speech as House minority leader, “The ABCs of Democracy” by Grand Central Publishing is an illustrated children’s book for people of all ages. Each letter contrasts what democracy is and isn’t, as in: “American Values over Autocracy”, “Benevolence over Bigotry” and “The Constitution over the Cult.”

Published

6 hours ago

December 22, 2024

Oakland Post

: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries at the Commonwealth Club World Affairs Council on Dec. 2. Photo by Johnnie Burrell. Book cover: "The ABCs of Democracy" by Hakeem Jeffries.

By Linda Parker Pennington
Special to The Post

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries addressed an enthusiastic overflow audience on Monday at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club, launching his first book, “The ABCs of Democracy.”

Based on his first speech as House minority leader, “The ABCs of Democracy” by Grand Central Publishing is an illustrated children’s book for people of all ages.

Each letter contrasts what democracy is and isn’t, as in: “American Values over Autocracy”, “Benevolence over Bigotry” and “The Constitution over the Cult.”

Less than a month after the election that will return Donald Trump to the White House, Rep. Jeffries also gave a sobering assessment of what the Democrats learned.

“Our message just wasn’t connecting with the real struggles of the American people,” Jeffries said. “The party in power is the one that will always pay the price.”

On dealing with Trump, Jeffries warned, “We can’t fall into the trap of being outraged every day at what Trump does. That’s just part of his strategy. Remaining calm in the face of turmoil is a choice.”

He pointed out that the razor-thin margin that Republicans now hold in the House is the lowest since the Civil War.

Asked what the public can do, Jeffries spoke about the importance of being “appropriately engaged. Democracy is not on autopilot. It takes a citizenry to hold politicians accountable and a new generation of young people to come forward and serve in public office.”

With a Republican-led White House, Senate, House and Supreme Court, Democrats must “work to find bi-partisan common ground and push back against far-right extremism.”

He also described how he is shaping his own leadership style while his mentor, Speaker-Emeritus Nancy Pelosi, continues to represent San Francisco in Congress. “She says she is not hanging around to be like the mother-in-law in the kitchen, saying ‘my son likes his spaghetti sauce this way, not that way.’”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

MacArthur Fellow Dorothy Roberts’ Advocates Restructure of Child Welfare System

Roberts’s early work focused on Black women’s reproductive rights and their fight for reproductive justice. In “Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty 1997)”, she analyzes historical and contemporary policies and practices that denied agency to Black women and sought to control their childbearing—from forced procreation during slavery, to coercive sterilization and welfare reform—and advocates for an expanded understanding of reproductive freedom.

Published

6 hours ago

December 22, 2024

Oakland Post

Dorothy Roberts. Photo courtesy of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Special to The Post

When grants were announced Oct. 1, it was noted that eight of the 22 MacArthur Fellows were African American. Among the recipients of the so-called ‘genius grants’ are scholars, visual and media artists a poet/writer, historian, and dancer/choreographer who each receive $800,000 over a five-year period to spend as they see fit.

Their names are Ruha Benjamin, Jericho Brown, Tony Cokes, Jennifer L. Morgan, Ebony G. Patterson, Shamel Pitts, Jason Reynolds, and Dorothy Roberts. This is the eighth and last in the series highlighting the Black awardees. The report below on Dorothy Roberts is excerpted from the MacArthur Fellows web site.

A graduate of Yale University with a law degree from Harvard, Dorothy Roberts is a legal scholar and public policy researcher exposing racial inequities embedded within health and social service systems.

Sine 2012, she has been a professor of Law and Sociology, and on the faculty in the department of Africana Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

Roberts’s work encompasses reproductive health, bioethics, and child welfare. She sheds light on systemic inequities, amplifies the voices of those directly affected, and boldly calls for wholesale transformation of existing systems.

This work prompted Roberts to examine the treatment of children of color in the U.S. child welfare system.

After nearly two decades of research and advocacy work alongside parents, social workers, family defense lawyers, and organizations, Roberts has concluded that the current child welfare system is in fact a system of family policing with alarmingly unequal practices and outcomes. Her 2001 book, “Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare,” details the outsized role that race and class play in determining who is subject to state intervention and the results of those interventions.

Through interviews with Chicago mothers who had interacted with Child Protective Services (CPS), Roberts shows that institutions regularly punish the effects of poverty as neglect.

CPS disproportionately investigates Black and Indigenous families, especially if they are low-income, and children from these families are much more likely than white children to be removed from their families after CPS referral.

In “Torn Apart: How the Child Welfare System Destroys Black Families—and How Abolition Can Build a Safer World (2022),” Roberts traces the historical, cultural, and political forces driving the racial and class imbalance in child welfare interventions.

These include stereotypes about Black parents as negligent, devaluation of Black family bonds, and stigmatization of parenting practices that fall outside a narrow set of norms.

She also shows that blaming marginalized individuals for structural problems, while ignoring the historical roots of economic and social inequality, fails families and communities.

Roberts argues that the engrained oppressive features of the current system render it beyond repair. She calls for creating an entirely new approach focused on supporting families rather than punishing them.

Her support for dismantling the current child welfare system is unsettling to some. Still, her provocation inspires many to think more critically about its poor track record and harmful design.

By uncovering the complex forces underlying social systems and institutions, and uplifting the experiences of people caught up in them, Roberts creates opportunities to imagine and build more equitable and responsive ways to ensure child and family safety.