2008 Woodie Awards
Staff Editorial
Issue date: 11/30/07 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 1
As students, sometimes it's easy to feel like the administration doesn't listen to us. Sometimes there isn't the level of transparency we'd like to see. Or sometimes they put students in a catch-22, like when they tell us to make decisions that will change the school as a student committee. But when a group of organized, dedicated students form, the administration tells them that the group cannot possibly represent the whole student body.
This was the response to students attending the beverage forums when students consistently voted against having Coca-Cola or Pepsi on our campus. Students met and researched several ethical alternatives to these soda providers. Considering that the grounds for the objections to Coke and Pepsi regarded unethical business practices, one might assume that the replacement would not commit crimes against humanity, privatize water, exploit the communities that house their factories, or spill endless amounts of toxins into the ground near farmland. If that was your assumption, you'd be wrong.
The issue of expelling Coke from Guilford College was handled at a very superficial level. The administration did not address the meat of students' arguments. Looking at the business practices of both companies, Pepsi is comparable to Coca-Cola. Both soda providers have committed similar offences to its workers and the environment.
Now with a brand new contract with Pepsi, additional changes will prove to be very difficult if not impossible for the next few years.
Pepsi-Cola has been found guilty of unfair hiring practices; giving toxic fertilizer to local farmers; privatizing, depleting, and polluting water in drought-prone areas in India; and suppressing (often violently) attempted union organization. But hey, at least it's not Coca-Cola, right?
With the administration working hard to alter the course of Guilford College, students are going to have to fight harder, even in the small battles to make ethical changes in our community. While its administration-1, students-0 at the moment, don't get discouraged. That statistic could change anytime.
This was the response to students attending the beverage forums when students consistently voted against having Coca-Cola or Pepsi on our campus. Students met and researched several ethical alternatives to these soda providers. Considering that the grounds for the objections to Coke and Pepsi regarded unethical business practices, one might assume that the replacement would not commit crimes against humanity, privatize water, exploit the communities that house their factories, or spill endless amounts of toxins into the ground near farmland. If that was your assumption, you'd be wrong.
The issue of expelling Coke from Guilford College was handled at a very superficial level. The administration did not address the meat of students' arguments. Looking at the business practices of both companies, Pepsi is comparable to Coca-Cola. Both soda providers have committed similar offences to its workers and the environment.
Now with a brand new contract with Pepsi, additional changes will prove to be very difficult if not impossible for the next few years.
Pepsi-Cola has been found guilty of unfair hiring practices; giving toxic fertilizer to local farmers; privatizing, depleting, and polluting water in drought-prone areas in India; and suppressing (often violently) attempted union organization. But hey, at least it's not Coca-Cola, right?
With the administration working hard to alter the course of Guilford College, students are going to have to fight harder, even in the small battles to make ethical changes in our community. While its administration-1, students-0 at the moment, don't get discouraged. That statistic could change anytime.
Be the first to comment on this story