---

BY ELENA CHOPYAK

In print | September 20, 2007

After a two-and-a-half year campaign to remove Coca-Cola products from campus resulted in a victory for Swarthmore’s Kick Coke chapter, the college’s Board of Managers is reevaluating the claims of wrong-doing against the Coca-Cola Company that had played into the college’s decision to drop Coke.

Ruth Schultz ‘09, one of the Kick Coke organizers, said the group did not expect that the Board would be able to reconsider the college’s move to eliminate Coke products from campus. “At first we were sort of surprised because we didn’t know that the Board had that kind of authority. Now we are questioning the role of the Board of Managers to overturn the results from a two-and-a-half year campaign,” Schultz said.

In an e-mail sent out to various groups on campus publicizing an educational and action meeting hosted by Kick Coke tonight at 7 p.m. in Kohlberg 115, Schultz referred to the possible overturning of the Board’s decision as “a precedent that would potentially jeopardize other decisions that the college makes.” Schultz urged students to attend, citing the importance of voicing concerns, “not only about the issue of Swarthmore’s contract with Coca-Cola, but about the lack of transparency and student voice in College decision-making processes in general.”

“We decided to hold the educational and action [meeting] after the Daily Gazette article came out last Thursday because we had a lot of people coming up to us asking ‘what is going on with the Board?’ and ‘what can I do to help?’ We have gotten a lot of positive responses from people that overturning the decision is not the right action to take and want to do something to voice their concerns. We also want to do something so that the administration and Board hears this sentiment from other people besides us,” Schultz said in an e-mail.

Schultz acknowledged that the Board of Managers has the right to partake in conversations about Coca-Cola’s status due to its inherent role in financial decision-making. However, “if the decision gets overturned, it shows that the administration doesn’t actually have a lot of power when it comes to these decisions, which will severely limit the amount of access that students have to the decision-makers,” Schultz said in an e-mail.

Last spring, the Board of Managers asked Swarthmore Kick Coke members to conduct further research into the allegations of Coca-Cola’s human rights abuses in Colombia and India. This request came after the administration decided to completely remove Coke products from college coffee and snack bars, various vending machines and Sharples.

“Those managers who have spoken on the subject believe that too little evidence and investigation has been undertaken and that too much reliance on a single source of information does not reflect the rigor of inquiry standard at the college,” Vice President Maurice Eldridge ‘61 said in an e-mail. The Board of Managers and the college Kick Coke members are meeting on Sept. 28 to further discuss the future of Coca-Cola’s relationship with the college. Kick Coke members will be presenting their position to the Board of Managers.

“not at all interested in attacking students or tearing down their perspectives and have to find and support the balance between educating our students for social and civic responsibility and keeping the institution whole for future generations,” Eldridge said.

Associate Vice President of Facilities and Services Stu Hain agreed. “The Board is trying to look at the big picture,” Hain said. “I want this process to play out. I’ve tried to understand both sides of the argument.”

Stocking the college with Pepsi products is considerably more expensive than purchasing Coca-Cola. According to Director of Dining Services Linda McDougall, the college purchased $14,716 in Coke bulk products in the 2006-07 academic year. “If we have bought the same amount of Pepsi it would have cost $40, 553,” she said. McDougall also said that the college participates in a consortium, a sort of buying co-op, with Dickinson College, Gettysburg College, Messiah College, Elizabethtown College, Bryn Mawr College and Haverford College. When the college sent a request for pricing to Pepsi and Coke, it became apparent that Pepsi was the more costly option. “If Swarthmore continues to use Pepsi, then future contracts for the remaining schools may be compromised and will most likely decrease their buying power,” McDougall said.

At Smith College, a soft drink advisory committee of students, faculty and administrative members was created to investigate the allegations against Coca-Cola to determine the validity of these claims. Emma Roderick, who graduated in 2007 from Smith College, was heavily involved in Smith’s Kick Coke Off Campus campaign. Roderick said that from her interactions with Coca-Cola she discovered that “like[s] their bottlers to have local autonomy. They said they can’t do anything unless the bottling plant wasn’t making enough money.” Roderick also said that the Coca-Cola Company itself has been the real reason why there has not been an investigation of the purported human rights abuses.

“It was absurd. It’s not like [Coca-Cola] denied any of it,” Roderick said.

In the spring of 2007, the president of Smith College sent a letter to Coca-Cola informing the company of Smith’s decision to absolve its 50-year relationship with the soda company. Smith College is now a Coke-free campus. “It’s really fun to see all the non-Coke machines on campus,” Roderick said of the change.

Ray Rogers, director of the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke, contacted The Phoenix after reading a Daily Gazette article on the developments at Swarthmore. Rogers, who participated in Smith’s campaign, came to Swarthmore once in 2004 to speak to a class, and again in 2005 for a forum.

“I think of Smith and Swarthmore in the same light. Both are prestigious campuses which take the facts before they make decisions,” Rogers said.Rogers currently works with 45 colleges and universities to remove Coke from campuses nationwide. “say[s] a number of things that just aren’t true. They try to besmirch the information we put out concerning labor, human rights and the environment,” Rogers said. Rogers said that he is willing to meet with Coca-Cola at any kind of venue, forum or committee. “Coke will not go head to head with me in any venue,” Rogers said.

Among other examples, Rogers cited KLD Research and Analytics, Inc.‘s decision to drop Coca-Cola and two of its largest bottling companies from its index of socially responsible funds as evidence of Coca-Cola’s labor and environmental violations. KLD Research and Analytics is an independent investment research firm in Boston that creates a Broad Market Social Index, that, according to KLD’s Web site, identifies “the best environmental, social and governance performers.”

Rogers also expressed concerns regarding the motives of a Swarthmore Board of Managers member. However, Rogers did not provide The Phoenix with substantial support for his claims in time for publication.

Schultz said that Swarthmore’s Kick Coke campaign has been working more closely with the United Students Against Sweatshops organization than with Ray Rogers.

Schultz acknowledged the difficulty in collaborating with an international solidarity campaign, stating that it is difficult not to be in close contact with the movement and situation in India and Colombia.

Eldridge said that the Board is looking for stronger evidence, “evidence that reaches a conclusion … that reflects a thorough study of the issues from a variety of points of view and a wider band of sources on any and/or all sides of the issues that concern the campaign.”

Schultz said that Kick Coke has been in touch with Corporate Accountability International, the Polaris Institute and the National Alliance for People’s movements, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties in order to bolster and corroborate the information Kick Coke receives from the national campaign.

“It is harder to find organizations working on the labor abuses in Colombia, most likely because [such work] would result in a threat to their life. People working for human and labor rights in Colombia are continually threatened, kidnapped and murdered, including judges who rule on those cases,” Schultz said.

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »