Here is a selection from the UM Coalition to Cut Contracts with Coca-Cola’s official statement:
The University of Michigan’s decision to immediately reinstate the Coca-Cola contracts is nothing short of an affront to democracy, justice, and accountability. Not only was the decision made without the mandatory consent of students as required by the Dispute Review Board recommendation; but by making this decision with a complete lack of transparency the administration violated its own established due process.
« Previous Article Coke Back at U-M
Next Article Fundraiser - Katrina Relief Work »
...Coca-Cola has had to do nothing to get this contract back, aside from calling their friends at the International Labor Organization to create the façade of an independent investigation. Ed Potter, Coke’s Director of Global Labor Relations and author of the full-page ads placed (at great expense) in the Michigan Daily, is a long-time employer-representative to the ILO. He has worked for the ILO for decades. This personal and financial relationship alone completely erases any possibility for a truly independent investigation on the part of the ILO. Even if the investigation uncovers Coke’s true crimes, bringing back Coke’s contract before an investigation is even formulated provides Coke with absolutely no incentive to take any corrective action. The administration has been made aware of the conflict of interest between Ed Potter and the ILO.
The members of the Coalition to Cut Contracts with Coca-Cola have engaged constructively with the administration on this issue for over a year. In our most recent meeting on March 31st, students were assured that: 1) no action would be taken regarding the Coca-Cola company without first consulting with students, in accordance with the Dispute Review Board recommendation; 2) the administration would outline in writing the procedure by which Coca-Cola would be eligible for renewing its contract with the University; and 3) that the University would not renew the contract unless plans were formulated and implemented for investigations into both Colombia and India. No such plans exist. “Active dialogue” does not constitute a meaningful commitment to a comprehensive, independent investigation or by any stretch of the imagination meet the requirements set by the University’s own Dispute Review Board.