Coca-Cola is currently in the midst of a three year ban on the New York University campus — a largely symbolic gesture considering the only thing any outsider knows about our school is that we don’t have a campus. But for those boycotting bodegas and Duane Reade yet still craving that Classic red, the day is coming to reconsider the sale of Coca-Cola products at dining halls and in vending machines school-wide.

Officially, Coke has met all of the terms of the initial ban, requiring a change of language to the resolution lest it become completely irrelevant. A Political Union and Review resolution failed by an 11-14 vote in early December, but the time has come again to yell and scream until we’re all red in the face and, um, need a soda.

The Filibuster, our own self-proclaimed “Political Watchdog” blog, has information about the upcoming Coca-Cola Forum, open only to the NYU community as an opportunity to debate the ban. Everyone who enters the Forum must sign-in and identify as either pro-ban or anti-ban to participate. Activists and die-hard capitalists, we’re counting on you both. Represent us honorably. Or something.

COCA-COLA FORUM
Monday, January 26
4:00 – 6:00 PM
Kimmel Center, Rooms 905-907

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