2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor
Aaron Fetrow
Issue date: 12/7/07 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 1
The tones of both the editorial entitled "Administration nullifies student input with Pepsi contract" and the article entitled "Guilford plans to drop Coca-Cola, Starbucks, and Nestle" suggest a conspiracy that would make a good plot for an Oliver Stone movie. Choosing a beverage provider that would satisfy students concerned with issues of social responsibility and those students concerned with taste or product offerings would make life much simpler for all involved and is a laudable goal.
As noted in the Nov 16 Beacon article asking for community input, a lengthy process took place with numerous chances for community input. Input came at open forums, via e-mail/voicemail, and most input occurred in casual conversations around campus. Campus Life received 36 e-mails concerning the switch. Of those, 34 favored the switch, while one supported a continuation with Coke, and one was opposed to a move to Pepsi as being no different than Coke. At the forums and student presentations we heard that a move away from Coke was the highest priority and we heard that Pepsi was not much better as a result of their privatization of water and allegations regarding questionable labor practices.
I want to reiterate what was noted in the Beacon regarding responsiveness of the proposed providers. The fact remains that two providers responded to our list of questions and those two providers were Coke and Pepsi. I personally called four different representatives from another company and received no response; however, I was directed to call a gentleman who "works with our college accounts." When he returned my call he explained that he didn't work for that company any longer, but he was nice enough to chat about the new organic tea company he worked for.
Overall, the message was loud and clear that Pepsi, to some degree, was a better option than Coke in regards to social issues and at least as good an option regarding product offerings and selection. The administration of the college firmly believes that the decision was reached after examining the opinions of many different members of our community.
-Aaron Fetrow
As noted in the Nov 16 Beacon article asking for community input, a lengthy process took place with numerous chances for community input. Input came at open forums, via e-mail/voicemail, and most input occurred in casual conversations around campus. Campus Life received 36 e-mails concerning the switch. Of those, 34 favored the switch, while one supported a continuation with Coke, and one was opposed to a move to Pepsi as being no different than Coke. At the forums and student presentations we heard that a move away from Coke was the highest priority and we heard that Pepsi was not much better as a result of their privatization of water and allegations regarding questionable labor practices.
I want to reiterate what was noted in the Beacon regarding responsiveness of the proposed providers. The fact remains that two providers responded to our list of questions and those two providers were Coke and Pepsi. I personally called four different representatives from another company and received no response; however, I was directed to call a gentleman who "works with our college accounts." When he returned my call he explained that he didn't work for that company any longer, but he was nice enough to chat about the new organic tea company he worked for.
Overall, the message was loud and clear that Pepsi, to some degree, was a better option than Coke in regards to social issues and at least as good an option regarding product offerings and selection. The administration of the college firmly believes that the decision was reached after examining the opinions of many different members of our community.
-Aaron Fetrow
Be the first to comment on this story