Compromise in the Coca-Cola case

To the Editor:

If you want the story on Coke you can't over-simplify. You have to realize that, as Philip Higgs wrote last week, there are two sides to the coin. It seems both sides of the Coke controversy are not totally accurate. Now, am I a totally objective impartial judge? No. But I will back up my points, and I only ask readers to think critically. First, I’ll start with the most recent pro-Coke article. Higgs is a great writer and makes a bunch of excellent points, but a few of them push things a little too far. Most of the information he presents is not new but can be found on Coke’s website http://www.cokefacts.org/.

For example, Higgs states that Coca-Cola was found “not guilty” by two different courts. It is worth mentioning that one of those courts found Coke not guilty because the company only owned many shares and not the actual place at which the murders were taking place. Nonetheless, Coca-Cola was in a position (as a major shareholder) to fix the problems. A judge known to be anti-union made the second decision that Higgs cites. The unionists were short of hard evidence—much of it is based on word of mouth, and since violence is so common in Colombia, it’s not as though they can hire a team of detectives. Higgs argues that safety is a Coca-Cola priority. That’s only the company’s perspective. The workers argue otherwise, disputing some of the website’s claims. Furthermore, Coca-Cola has refused to do an independent public investigation. Isn’t this a little bit peculiar? Their website says they had an investigation, but it doesn’t mention that it was conducted by their own lawyers and that prevented it from being released to the public. I think that one can be a pro-Coke boycotter and not be “blind ideologically.” However, Higgs does a really good job of pointing out what the Coca-Cola boycotters do not. I’m appreciative of what he wrote and just wish to make other points. Coca-Cola provides a lot of scholarships and is much more pro-union than its rival, Pepsi. If the decision was just about conduct in America, Macalester would have no problem in keeping its contract with Coke. Some try to simplify the issue and suggest that Coca-Cola’s corruption in Columbia is a huge surprise. Yet recruiting altruistic Coca-Cola managers to live in a war-torn, violent and corrupt area is no easy task. Not only would they have to want to make the world a better place by moving to distraught lands, but they would have to yearn to make a difference by being a Coke manager. In addition to having to find non-corrupt managers who won’t be killed by the guerillas, Coca-Cola also has to ensure safety in an unsafe land, and risk losing lives in resisting the guerillas. To ask Coca-Cola to just “solve it” doesn’t quite work. SLAC’s decision to request an independent investigation or destroy the contract is a good compromise. I don’t think the problem for Coca-Cola is that they are refusing to investigate a potential problem. I think they know they are. I think their real dilemma is that they can’t seem to find a solution and making the problem public will only hurt them more.

Luke Calhoun ’05
 

Human rights or a refreshing soda?

To the Editor:

Like Phillip Higgs and probably a great number of Macalester students, I grew up drinking Coca-Cola. I don’t doubt that as a multibillion dollar corporation, they’ve been able to give large amounts of money to a lot of causes. I know that they create jobs and produce a product that many people, including me, are or have been quite attached to. However, I was there to listen when Coke representatives came to Macalester to respond to claims of human and civil rights abuses in Colombia. I read propaganda provided by both sides. In the end, I was not entirely convinced that Coke wasn’t complicit in assassinations and campaigns of intimidation of some Colombian workers. The judicial courts that overturned decisions against Coke have been seriously questioned as far as their own interests and influences are concerned. As far as the “violent situation in the country itself,” it has everything to do with Coca-Cola. Coke reps at Macalester passed responsibility for the murders of labor leaders onto the U.S.’s Plan Colombia, one of the most aggravating factors in the violence there. I guess they didn’t think their audience here would be aware that Plan Colombia entails support of paramilitaries for the purpose of containing the power of labor and protecting the economic interests of American corporations like Coke in Colombia. I came away unimpressed and a bit insulted, and knowing that my dollars would be better spent towards businesses and initiatives created with the express desire to make the world a better place. I for one have tried not to be judgmental, impatient or critical of friends, family and peers who haven’t chosen to stop purchasing Coke—I understand that I had the time to consider the issue from both sides and that other people felt their time was better spent exploring other issues or simply feel confident that Coke is innocent. However, even those of us who are more frustrated with those who choose to keep drinking Coke can hardly be called conservative. At the end of the day, all of us are working from the progressive idea that we as humans can do better than ambivalence towards human and civil rights and tasty soda.

Maleeha Rizwy ’05
 

Reedy’s ethical principle flawed

To the Editor:

Prof. Reedy’s letter to the editor last week was a disappointment, to say the least. Jerry, you’re a great guy, but your logic is as shaky as the collective student ass at last week’s Choice-O-Rama dance. In his argument, Prof. Reedy claims that it would be “impossible” for Macalester to continue its current need-blind admissions policy, and therefore that we are not obligated to do so. He writes, “no agent is ever morally obligated to do what is impossible.” Reedy is committing what is known as the logical fallacy of equivocation, which is to say using one word to mean two separate things.

Now, certainly, if continuing current need-blind policies were impossible by definition, we would not be obligated to do so. This is why we are not obligated to give every student a full ride. That is impossible by our definition as an institution.

What Reedy means is “difficult.” It would be difficult for Macalester to continue current policy. Maybe even so difficult we can’t see how we could ever do it without going broke. This, however, does not absolve us from our obligation to lower income applicants. It only challenges us and tests our core convictions.

This debate is too serious to fall victim to a linguistic sleight-of-hand. There are all sorts of factors to be included, such as the brilliant work Jesse Mortenson and Seth Schlotterbeck sent out on the Defend Need-Blind e-mail list this week, before we frame this incredibly important problem of defending need-blind as one that is logically impossible to solve. It is difficult, and needs to be treated with respect. Then we may all shake our collective need-blind ass together, as though it were an odds-defying Polaroid picture. Prof. Reedy and I will dance side by side. I guarantee it.

John Knefel ’05
 

Why punish liberal locals with protests?

To the Editor:

I would like to direct my comments to the protesters who blocked the street in protest after Election Day:

Seriously, guys, stop acting like you’re the only people angry about the election. Your organized temper tantrum didn’t raise any political awareness—it just reminded the people of St. Paul that Mac students are self-centered brats who don’t seem to be doing their homework. After all, the majority of our hard-working neighbors in the Mac-Groveland area are Kerry supporters. They are just as upset about the state of the nation as you are. Why punish them? At the very least, why not block the street in a more conservative part of town?

It's also a shame that the St. Paul Police Department was uncharacteristically lenient and didn’t haul any of you away. It’s not “bullshit” for police officers to break up civil disruptions. It’s bullshit that they had to be called in the first place. Grow up, kids, and stop making the rest of us look bad.

Jack Phinney ’06