VOLUME XLI, ISSUE

With the resignation of current Fordham University President Rev. Joseph M. McShane, S.J., the presidential transition has begun with the assembly of a search committee consisting of trustees, faculty, staff and current students. Fordham has also been hosting virtual town halls to gather the community’s input. The committee will present its front-running candidates to the Board of Trustees in early 2022 and announce its final choice in the spring of 2022. Despite this show of inclusivity, students are concerned that Fordham’s next president will not embody the community’s values nor identities.

Fordham has many policies that differ from the values of the student body, like limiting overnight guests based on sex, unlike other Jesuit universities. The 2020-21 academic year was the first with gender-inclusive housing options at Lincoln Center, only provided after five years of advocacy by students.

Fordham’s administration has previously ignored petitions by students demanding more concrete actions to address racial inequity, such as cutting university ties with its food service Aramark and unpacking Public Safety’s involvement with the NYPD. It is important for our administration to listen to the student body when petitioned.

Fordham’s next president should be someone who will advocate for students and accommodate largely progressive interests. Since the university has repeatedly expressed interest in addressing institutional racism, electing a person of color and/or a woman will be proof of this commitment.

Fordham’s undergraduate population is 65% female, but there has yet to be a female president. If elected, the potential female president would not be a Jesuit priest, as priests must be male. However, one could still practice Jesuit values. To be a person for others is a central Fordham tenet, regardless of gender.

Over the last decade,

Fordham has sought to diversify its upper leadership, hiring women, people of color and others who identify as members of minority groups. One of the biggest changes occurred in 2015 when Fordham hired four new deans, three of whom were women: Eva Badowska at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Maura Mast at Fordham College at Rose Hill, and Virginia Roach at the Graduate School of Education (who stepped down in 2020 to pursue other opportunities). Mica McKnight became the Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) assistant dean for sophomores in 2017 and served in that position until just last month. Laura Auricchio followed suit, becoming the FCLC dean in 2019. Also at Lincoln Center, Tracyann Williams was appointed to the recently added position of assistant dean for Student Support and Success.

Since then, Fordham leaders have continued to diversify the administration with special attention to race, particularly after the intensification of anti-racism efforts in 2020. Three months ago, José Luis Alvarado became the dean at the Graduate School of Education and Jenifer Campbell was promoted to dean of students at Lincoln Center.

Efforts to include more people of color in administrative positions should extend to the selection of Fordham’s next president. Doing so would further diversify the management of this institution and better reflect the makeup of the student body.

If the university wants to progress along with the students they admit, they should hire a president who represents the student population. Fordham students have a voice that deserves to be heard at the highest level and a president who resembles them.

Editor-in-Chief Katrina Lambert

Managing Editor Grace Getman

Online Editors Corbin Gregg Jill Rice

Creative Director Roxanne Cubero

Treasurer Adam D’Souza Fundraising Coordinator Shagun Rath Advertising Coordinator Luis Castellanos

Layout Editor Maddie Sandholm Asst. Layout Editor Janine Baltazar

Photo Editors Alyssa Daughdrill Andrew Dressner Asst. Photo Editor Ashley Yiu

Head Copy Editors Emily Ellis Alyssa Macaluso Asst. Copy Editor Sophia Collender

News Editors Joe Kottke Allie Stofer Asst. News Editors Maryam Beshara Chloe Zelch

Sports & Health Editor Patrick Moquin Asst. Sports & Health Editors Gus Dupree Chris Murray

Opinions Editors Clara Gerlach Ava Peabody Asst. Opinions Editor Jessica Yu

Arts & Culture Editors Madeline Katz Olivia Stern Asst. Arts & Culture Editor Isabella Gonzalez

Features Editor Mia Agostinelli Asst. Features Editor Aidan Lane

Fun & Games Editor Kreena Vora

Social Media Editor Samantha Matthews Asst. Social Media Editors Isabella Scipioni Diana Silva

Multimedia Editor Alexa Stegmuller

Retrospect Hosts Kiera Mullany Diana Silva Mia Swann

IT Manager Zayda Bleecker-Adams

Visual Adviser Molly Bedford Editorial Adviser Anthony Hazell

PUBLIC NOTICE No part of The Observer may be reprinted or reproduced without the expressed written consent of The Observer board. The Observer is published on alternate Wednesdays during the academic year. Printed by Five Star Printing Flushing, N.Y. To reach an editor by e-mail, visit www.fordhamobserver.com

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

• Letters to the Editor should be typed and sent to The Observer,

Fordham University, 140 West 62nd Street, Room G32, New York, NY 10023, or emailed to editor@fordhamobserver.com. Length should not exceed 200 words. All letters must be signed and include contact information, official titles and year of graduation (if applicable) for verification. • If submitters fail to include this information, the editorial board will do so at its own discretion. • The Observer has the right to withhold any submissions from publication and will not consider more than two letters from the same individual on one topic. The Observer reserves the right to edit all letters and submissions for content, clarity and length. • Opinions articles and commentaries represent the view of their authors. These articles are in no way the views held by the editorial board of The Observer or Fordham University. • The Editorial is the opinion held by a majority of The Observer’s editorial board. The Editorial does not necessarily reflect the views held by Fordham University.

Docs have transformed from a utilitarian boot to a mainstream accessory worn by celebrities and Fordham students alike.

Contributing Writer

Doc Martens: an iconic British boot worn by humble postmen to rock superstars like Pete Townshend. Like many other British brands, Docs have transformed from a utilitarian boot to a mainstream accessory worn by celebrities and Fordham students alike. Their popularity is not just based on its iconic style but also a reputation built by decades of quality, durable construction and longevity. Yet for the past 20 years, Dr. Martens have wasted away a storied reputation. To understand their decline, you must first understand their origins.

Doc Martens’ origins lay not in Britain, but in Germany. The company was founded by Klaus Märtens in 1947 after he partnered with a friend from his university to produce a boot design he created himself. He came up with the design that utilized air-cushioned soles after injuring his ankle while serving in the German army.

At first, the two sold the majority of their boots to housewives, but by 1952, their sales had increased to the point that they attracted the attention of British shoe manufacturer the R. Griggs Group. In 1952, the R. Griggs Group bought the patent rights to manufacture the boot in Britain and changed the name from Märtens to “Dr. Martens.”

During the 1960s, “Docs” became popular first with blue-collar workers then with scooter riders, punks and other youth subcultures. It was during the late 1960s and 1970s when the shoes’ popularity was cemented in youth culture.

In 2003, declining revenues forced Doc Martens close to bankruptcy, leading the company to shut down U.K. production and outsource their production to cheaper East Asian manufacturers. This, along with a relaunch of its product line, brought the company back from solvency and led to it being acquired by the private equity firm Permira in 2013.

Since its acquisition by Permira, Doc Martens experienced record revenue growth. In 2019 alone, its revenue was £454 million, a six-fold increase since 2013. But what was the cost? Before the 2000s, Doc Martens manufactured nearly all its boots in Britain at its original Cobbs Lane factory in Wollaston, Northamptonshire. Yet after its near bankruptcy and acquisition, Doc Martens now only produces 1% of its boots in the U.K. as of 2018.

The question is: Are Doc Martens still worth it? Well, it is complicated. To the average Fordham student who wears boots solely for their looks, yes, Doc Martens are a decent pair of (overpriced) boots. To those who care about the quality of their footwear and where their money goes, Docs are not worth it.

In 2019, The Guardian published an article detailing dozens of customer complaints about the boot’s decline in quality after its acquisition. One longtime owner detailed sentiments shared by many other customers: “I have two otherwise identical pairs of Dr. Martens boots — one U.K. made, one Chinese-made — and while the U.K.-made ones are among the most comfortable footwear I own, the Chinese-made ones (are) made of nasty, rigid, thinner leather.”

Another passionate owner from London wrote, “The replacement pair has a glued-in flat-foam insole which leaves a gap between it and the inside of the boot. Not only that but the leather that comprises the tongue is 0.2 mm thinner — 1.4 mm compared to 1.6 mm of the previous pair.”

The perceived decline of Doc Martens is not just an isolated case but rather emblematic of an industry trend whereby companies by their own accord — or after being bought out — shift production from their home countries to cheaper regions such as Southeast Asia and South America. Storied brands like Barbour, Allen Edmonds and Schotts have all shifted production overseas to reduce costs and quality while raising prices.

At this point, some readers might be wondering, “So what?” “So what if I buy a foreign-made boot if it is comfortable and decent quality in my mind?” Such an attitude toward specific products is what caused their quality decline in the first place. It is consumers’ continued purchase of overpriced, lower-quality products that enables a company to offshore production, reduce quality and jack up prices to exorbitant amounts while raking in record profits.

Voting with your wallet can be a powerful sign to companies to change their practices — just look at the video game industry and microtransactions.

Personally, knowing where my clothes and footwear come from is a matter of principle and pride. Before many brands offshored their manufacturing, their local factories in America or Europe supported hundreds, if not thousands, of skilled workers, and many towns and cities. Corporate greed has been the death knell not just for the American and British clothing and footwear workers but also automobile and factory workers.

What sets the situation with Doc Martens apart from others is that you can still choose to support the right company. Solovair is a British-made boot brand manufactured by NPS Shoes in Northamptonshire, U.K. They have hand-made British shoes in the Northamptonshire factory since 1881 and during the 1960s, they were contracted by the R. Griggs Group to manufacture the iconic Doc Martens boot with a Solovair sole and Griggs upper. This partnership continued until the mid-1990s until Doc Martens began shifting production offshore.

In 1995, however, Solovair trademarked its name, enabling it to make its air-cushioned boots that once created British-made Doc Martens during the 1960s. Nowadays, Solovair continues to make boots of their design and similar designs to original Doc Martens in the Northamptonshire factory.

When comparing Solovair’s Black Greasy 8 Eye Derby boots to Doc Martens’ 1460 Vintage Made in England boots, it is evident that their appearance and price are almost identical, coming in at $225 and $230, respectively, and adorned with white stitching and yellow stitching, respectively. The main difference is Solovair’s quality and the fact that it did not employ dubious business practices that cost hundreds of British workers their jobs and slashed its quality in pursuit of profit.

The only way to put an end to this practice of corporate greed is to begin genuinely caring about the manufacturing source and ethics of the companies by not turning a blind eye for the sake of cheapness and looks.

ANDREW DRESSNER/THE OBSERVER