---

In print | January 26, 2006

The Kick Coke campaign has been the brunt of many jokes on campus, some lighthearted and some more vicious. Last year, with the establishment of “Coke-free Fridays,” students could be heard joking that they planned to drink Coke every Friday. At least four Facebook groups, “Coke is so Fucking Good,” “Kick Kick Coke at Swat,” “Coke Kicks” and “Don’t Kick Coke” sprung up in opposition to the campaign. Now, however, the greater college community is beginning to acknowledge the seriousness of the claims against Coke.

Like many others at Swarthmore, we were initially skeptical of the Kick Coke campaign’s seriousness and potential to succeed. However, the recent successes of similar campaigns at NYU and the University of Michigan have brought the allegations against Coke into the limelight and lent them nationwide legitimacy. Some students at Swarthmore seem to view our activist groups as overzealous, claiming that they create full-fledged campaigns out of minor issues. The success of campaigns at larger schools, which are not known as Swarthmore is for any particular progressivism, may indicate that the battle against Coke at Swarthmore is neither trivial nor overconfident.

Swarthmore isn’t NYU or the University of Michigan. The fact that Kick Coke has been successful at these larger schools does not in itself guarantee the campaign will meet with similar success at Swarthmore. However, Swarthmore’s campus has several factors - a history of Quakerism, an adminstration allegedly commited to social change-making, a smaller student body, and therefore a smaller contract - that may contribute to the campaign’s success here. What Kick Coke has been working against here at Swat is deeply embedded cynicism.

At best this cynicism results in critical discourse. What are the best alternatives to Coke? How humane are these alternative companies really? Will the decisions Swarthmore makes about its small contract and stock holdings influence a huge company like Coke? How expensive are the alternatives and where would this money come from? Where is the proof of Coke’s human rights violations? At worst this cynicism results in self-interested fatigue and knee-jerk reactions to all activism. The campaign must find ways to work with, not against, Swarthmore students’ desire to question things. In doing this, they should learn from the victories and failures of previous campaigns. No one was convinced by the Living Wage campaign’s “Specter,” but people may have been won over by the panels, fireside chats, and discussions that presented both sides of a multi-faceted issue.

The administration should consider the claims of the campaign carefully. It should investigate the rationale behind the decisions made by NYU and University of Michigan. We should not continue a contract simply because it is cost effective if continuing it has negative ethical ramifications. The administration should certainly continue to put pressure on the Coke company to adopt more humane labor practices.

Swatties should give the campaign a fresh chance this semester. Mocking or criticizing the campaign before you’ve been to an event and asked a member to explain their position seems reactionary and ignorant. Disagree with the campaign if you want — but do it at a meeting or in a forum, where you can be part of critical debate.

One of the previously mentioned Facebook groups has already disappeared. Perhaps on Coke-free Friday tomorrow, more students will choose not to drink Coke — or at least won’t drink Coke simply to spite the campaign. Ultimately, we (the student body, the adminstration, this paper) shouldn’t let the actions of bigger schools be a litmus test for whether or not we jump on the ethical bandwagon, but should judge each campaign by the merits of its claims.

---

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »