On Campus - by Henry Chan on Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:23 - 11 Comments
Debate Points to End of Coke Ban
Yes, I know that I can just walk a measly five minutes to Space Market and grab a Coke, but let me be bitter (and a lazy ass) for a moment. I’m a diehard Coke person. I refuse to drink Pepsi. Why drink anything of lesser quality when I can buy Coke for an equal price, and it’s infinitely better? (Not to mention the excellent commercials.) So I attended last night’s debate about the continuation of NYU’s three year long Coke ban, hosted by the Political Union and Review @ NYU, not expecting any of my opinions to be changed. I thought the ban was stupid and pointless, and frankly, should never have been implemented in the first place.
Madeline Kane (NYU ’10) started off the debate arguing for the ban, saying that it was a “really serious issue and deserves our attention.” She cited the reason for the ban, which was basically a protest against the alleged human rights abuses against bottling plant workers in Colombia. She claimed that justice can only prevail if the ban is upheld. Keeping the ban, she asserted, will show Coca-Cola that NYU takes workers’ rights issues very seriously. “Collectively we do have an impact,” she said, “and it’s a very easy impact to make.”
Annie Peck (NYU ’11) argued against the ban, not trying to contest the allegations of human rights abuses, but positing that Coca-Cola had fulfilled the requirements of the ban, and even went further. Not only did Coca-Cola submit to “independent investigation into allegations of the Coca-Cola Company’s complicity in human rights violations” (read the full text of the ILO report here), but also, after the accusations were made against the corporation, Coca-Cola created safety education programs for their workers and provided security for union members traveling to and from work. Peck also brought up the negative effects of the ban, saying that our ban was hurting local bottling plants, which provide New York City with its Coca-Cola products. “If you piss NYU off,” she said, “you basically have no reason to change your ways, because we won’t change ours.”
Obvious comparisons between NYU and huge corporations were made, the democratic freedom of choice was discussed, and a whole bunch of statistics were shared. A Sternie made the most telling observation, however, when he said that we were approaching Coca-Cola with a “guilty until proven innocent mentality.”
In the end, the resolution failed by an 11-14 vote, with two abstentions. The majority of those who attended the PURNYU debate believed the ban should be lifted. And rightly so. I no longer think that the ban is completely pointless. Human rights are a very important global issue, and NYU’s insistence on having human rights respected is laudable. However, Coca-Cola has already fulfilled the requirements of the ban, and unless the language of the resolution is changed, the ban is now moot.
Whatever your opinion, make sure to contact your student senator. A vote on a decision to lift the ban is to be held in February, and I hope most of you will join me in asking our senators to help lift the ban. It’s been long overdue.
Photo by David Alvarez
11 Comments
Madeline Kane
Thanks for coming out! I’m glad you agree that the ban wasn’t completely pointless in the first place, but unfortunately if you look at the text of the ILO Coke permitted, you’ll see that it 1) doesn’t have anything to do with human rights issues, past or present (like the murders), 2) doesn’t claim to be an investigation–the ILO isn’t a body that completes investigations and doesn’t claim to be, and 3) that it says huge problems pervade with management harassing the union members.
In the 1970’s and 80’s, there was a widespread ban on Coke problems because of violence against union leaders in Guatemala, and it worked–Coke addressed the human rights abuses and cracked down on their bottling plants. Hopefully the ban will stay in place, and Coke will be forced to go beyond simply looking into current labor conditions, and will look into human rights violations in Colombia.
Anyway, the ban probably will stay in place. Coke came to NYU last semester trying to get it lifted, and the measure was voted down. CAS Student Council has already endorsed the continuance of the ban. But hey, like you said, if you disagree, there’s always Space Market.
…Too bad you missed the CAS Student Council debate, which didn’t allow folks to pack the room, where the ban was supported 21-5. Which suggests exactly the opposite:
http://ventriloquismnyc.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/nyu-coke-ban-gains-more-support/
Phillip Klugman
You want to know what’s funny about the NYU “ban” on coke? I am attending NYU in Prague this semester and we have two coca-cola machines on campus, one in each of the NYU building lobbies.
Billy Smith
I am a firm believer in have the option to choose based on my own opinion. I am also a believer in the democratic process. I have a problem with the democratic process regulating morals and ethics. If there are students that believe that there should be a coke ban, they can buy a Pepsi. Are these students that are protesting wearing Nike gear, or clothing made in sweat shops in China, or purchasing anything made in China, Russia, or North Korea? Where do we draw the line??
I’m love Coke! It’s so much better than Pepsi… and quite frankly have nothing else to say about this.
Henry Chan
I wonder what percentage of the student body actually supports the ban.
Roger McPhee
Billy, that’s exactly why NYU’s clothing is made by sweatshop-free companies.
Henry, most of the student body, after having grown up in a Coca-Cola saturated environment, probably cares more about their soft-drink choice than they do about researching the facts behind Coke’s shady practices around the world. It would be no surprise to me if many students wanted Coke back on campus–but most of those students are either ignorant of apathetic towards Coke’s treatment of unions in Columbia. Democracy doesn’t work if people are ignorant and apathetic.
Mark Tanley
I am apathetic to Coke’s treatment of workers. I don’t care–I want to be able to drink what I want when I want to. You may see this outlook as morally “wrong.” Go ahead and judge my “moral incorrectness,” but don’t regulate it. No one has the right to regulate my morals. The KKK is allowed to exst–as it rightfully should be. In my mind, they are “morally wrong;” I think they are one of the most repulsive groups of people on the planet. But this is no basis to regulate the KKK–no one has the authority to close them down because they exhibit “bad moral behavior.” Likewise, I don’t care in the least bit about workers in Columbia. Call my morals on this issue weak and obscene, but I am free to feel this way. Ergo, no one should have the authority to ban Coke because they are exhibiting bad moral conduct towards workers. This makes the assumption that everyone at NYU cares about these workers (it even takes it a step further and says that everyone at NYU SHOULD care about these workers). Don’t tell me who or what to care about by restricting my choice. If you don’t like Coke’s policies, don’t buy their products.
Charlie Eisenhood
I’m with the free marketers on this one. If NYU students don’t want to buy Coke products, they can choose not to. I’m not a huge fun of the student Senate arbitrarily deciding to keep Coke off of our campus. The only time I ever hear from student Senators is when they need their god damn signatures. You can be sure they didn’t “check with their constituents” when they banned Coke.
Chuck Burkhart
Has anyone looked into Pepsi’s roll in this Coke Ban?
Pepsi has hundreds of lawsuits all over the world, but no one started a ban on campus.
I just find it interesting that there is such a huge following when Killer Coke comes on campus, and when you ask them about Pepsi, they say its not important to talk about Pepsi.
The Students of UA (University of Arkansas) kicked Pepsi out for Coke a few months ago, and its because they LIKE COKE BETTER. Wow, what a concept, the UA gives its students what they want and didnt bring a political movement like Killer Coke in to mess things up.
They had their moment 10 years ago, now its time for them to pick a new problem to focus on, how about Nike and their Sweatshops all over the world?
Oh, but if we do that, we might loose the Nike contract the athletic department has. What to do, What to do.
Leave a Reply
Each side presented a compelling argument, but you’re right, at this point- there’s no reason to maintain the ban. Coca-Cola has done their part, now give us back the choice between Coke & Pepsi. (Though I care for neither, it’s about the principles)