Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

Coke Back at U-M

12. April 2006 • Ari Paul
Email this article

According to the U-M News Service, “U-M Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Timothy P. Slottow stated that the University will resume procurement of Coca-Cola products, effective immediately.”



  1. Some more details here ...


       —David Boyle    Apr. 12 '06 - 01:26AM    #
  2. Not a single student was involved in the decision. Yuck.


       —Dan    Apr. 12 '06 - 06:27AM    #
  3. “Not a single student was involved in the decision. Yuck.”

    Filing CSJ complaints can really be a drain on a student leader’s time.


       —Daniel Adams    Apr. 12 '06 - 01:19PM    #
  4. Boy what a cynic, Dan A! Don’t ask me to file a habeas corpus complaint to free YOUR *ss when they send you to Guantanamo…(heh)

    Dan #1: I agree.
       —David Boyle    Apr. 12 '06 - 02:56PM    #
  5. I don’t think I’m being cynical. Dan mentioned that its lametable that students didn’t have a greater role in the decision. I thought, “What a great job for a student leader!” Then I remembered what Michigan’s “student leaders” have been doing for the past month: Running an election like siblings fight over a toy, crying to CSJ as though each didn’t have a hand in creating the mess. What’s next: “MSA VP leaves bag of shit on opponent’s porch, CSJ called in to adjudicate?”


       —Daniel Adams    Apr. 12 '06 - 04:47PM    #
  6. Not a wholly bad point…..then again, the Coke activists may be a slightly different subset of the student body than MSA members/candidates are.


       —David Boyle    Apr. 12 '06 - 05:05PM    #
  7. So Coke agrees to an audit by a labor-standards organization that is recognized by the United Nations.

    That seems to fit University’s demand following the DRB report: submit to a third-party audit amenable to both sides.

    A ILO, which routinely performs such audits under the auspicies of the United Nations, seems like a perfectly reasonable group to conduct a third-party audit of Coke practices.

    What is the Coke Coalition mad about? Isn’t this what they wanted? Isn’t an independent third-party audit the most they could have reasonably expected?


       —Suhael    Apr. 12 '06 - 05:13PM    #
  8. Suhael:

    With UM activists its generally a bad idea to assume that there is a nexus between a position and a tangible policy outcome. More and more, I’m seeing these sorts of fights to be nothing more than a socially acceptable way for “progressives” to be intolerant and hateful in a politically-correct and progressively-compatible way.

    Take the current discussion on GoodspeedUpdate for example. Activists want Gamua to drop its offensive name. Gamua does that and still they’re up in arms. “This organization cannot be allowed to exist.” “This organization has no use on campus.” They could just as easily be talking about Lambda or NOW or the NAACP.


       —Daniel Adams    Apr. 12 '06 - 05:22PM    #
  9. Agreement to an audit is good; however, I kind of wonder about the whole context, including that UM has been off Coke for only a little more than three months—and students were apparently not consulted at all about the return of Coke, after all the work they put in, either. Not that students run, or should run, UM, but the administration’s “you don’t exist” attitude here is hardly to be praised.

    (I am also curious about what other universities/colleges who banned Coke, are going to do, or have done, re the problem.)
       —David Boyle    Apr. 12 '06 - 05:34PM    #
  10. Well, that was quick… How soon until a “We’re divesting from Israel… from Easter through finals, but over the summer we’re buying it all back”?


       —js    Apr. 13 '06 - 03:20AM    #