---

BY ELENA CHOPYAK

In print | October 4, 2007

Despite fears that the Board of Managers would overturn the administration’s decision to remove Coca-Cola products from campus, no decision concerning Coca-Cola was made at last week’s Board of Managers meeting. In fact, the Board of Managers has never before overturned a decision made by the administration and will not be overturning the administration’s Coca-Cola decision.

Sarah Roberts ‘08, Ruth Schultz ’09, Zoe Bridges-Curry ’09 and Andrew Petzinger ’09 presented Kick Coke’s case to the Board of Managers, beginning with a brief history of the Swarthmore campaign before putting forth their evidence against Coca-Cola, all within a span of ten minutes. Following Kick Coke’s presentation, Board members stated their reasoning for the call to reevaluate the claims against Coca-Cola. “The student presentation was coordinated and thoughtful, but not persuasive to some listeners,” Vice President Maurice Eldridge ’61 said.

Roberts said that approximately 15 minutes of the meeting were spent on the Coca-Cola controversy. Roberts also said that the issue of money was not once mentioned during the discussion over Coca-Cola’s reinstatement. Additionally, the Board discussed the Crum deer overpopulation problem and the possibility of signing a letter against the British academic boycott of two Israeli universities.

Last year, after the administration made the decision to stop selling and offering Coca-Cola products, a few Board members approached the administration with their concerns about the decision-making process. Administrators then informed Kick Coke members that they now needed to present pertinent and convincing evidence in favor of the Coca-Cola ban. Over this past summer, Kick Coke sent information and a letter to the Board of Managers, expressing their hope thatthe original decision would not be overturned.

About a week before the most recent Board of Managers meeting, Kick Coke organizers met with President Al Bloom, Eldridge and Vice President of Facilities and Management Stu Hain to discuss the sentiments and reasoning of some of the dissenting Board members.

During this meeting, the administration told Kick Coke that the Board of Managers has never turned a decision made by the administration, and would not be in charge of deciding Coca-Cola’ status at the college. Additionally, administrators informed Kick Coke organizers that they would not be making an immediate decision on the issue.

“We were caught by surprise when we learned that [the Board] was not intending to overturn the decision,” Bridges-Curry said. “The students and the Board were operating under different understandings.”

One day prior to the Board of Managers’ meeting, Kick Coke organizers met with David Gelber ’63, Jed Rakoff ’64 and Pam Wetzels ’52 over lunch. According to Roberts, Board members Rakoff and Gelber are the only members who have expressed concern over the elimination of Coca-Cola from the college

Foreseeing the lack of time for thorough discussion during the upcoming meeting, the three Board members wanted to communicate the concerns they had, as well as to share suggestions for Kick Coke’s continuing investigation of Coca-Cola. Bridges-Curry stated that Gelber, an investigative journalist, was particularly interested in Kick Coke’s research methodology.

Kick Coke now plans to meet with the administration next week to figure out the next steps it must take, as well as to decipher what exactly is going on in the decision-making process. “It’s very unclear,” Roberts said in reference to the relationships between Kick Coke, the administration and the Board of Managers.

“The Board has all of the power and all of the money, but they don’t want to go against Al Bloom and the decisions of the school,” Roberts said. Eldridge said, in reference to the Coca-Cola issue, “the administration will consider the next steps and timing of those steps.”

“It’s like pulling teeth to get a timeframe from anyone,” Roberts said of Kick Coke’s interactions with Coca-Cola and the administration. “I don’t think its just Kick Coke that has a hard time getting the school to tell when and how decisions are made,” Roberts said. “I think this could have been done a lot faster and with less headaches for everyone.” According to Roberts, the Lang Center and Student Council are working on assembling a new committee on socially responsible purchasing, partially in hopes of streamlining the decision-making process.

“Ultimately, the conversation was really productive,” Bridges-Curry said of the Board meeting. “Having been in a meeting, I know more about the process of how the Board works.” Bridges-Curry echoed Roberts’ sentiments, stating that, “The distance between the Board and the students is problematic.”

Kick Coke will continue to do research and, while doing so, will speak to the International Labor Organization for more information. Bridges-Curry said that Gelber and Rakoff have expressed interest in continuing conversations with Kick Coke between now and the next Board meeting.

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »