Anti- vs. Anti-Anti-

The large lecture hall is almost full. At least, it seems that way. The mood is a bit tense, which is not at all helped when one of the Student Government Vice Presidents gets up and, in introducing the event, informs everyone that members of Student Government will be going around and will ask anyone who yells or interrupts someone else to leave, and that if someone refuses to leave, an officer from the UCPD is standing by the doors. The Anti-Anti-Coke people handed out a bunch of Coca-Cola-red t-shirts, which form antagonizing clumps in the audience, like a bullfighter's cape. Still, it seems that Anti-Coke people have the advantage in terms of numbers.

The event is a "Student Government Forum" on whether or not to kick Coke off campus for not investigating alleged human rights violations at its factories in Columbia and horrible environmental practices at its factories in India. The Anti-Coke campaign has been brewing for a while - my friend Evan told me about it several years ago - and has been a major campaign in labor-rights circles. But what is new, and what is perhaps unique to the U of C, is the rise of an Anti-Anti-Coke campaign, a group of people organized, sort of organized at least, to defend Coca-Cola. How many campuses have groups that fight for huge multi-national corporations?

I was there to support the Anti-Coke campaign, though I have some problems with the head of the national campaign, Ray Rogers. The Anti-Coke people had handed out packets of information and prepared questions for when the representatives from Coca-Cola came up to speak. The Anti-Anti-Coke people handed out free Cokes.

When Ray Rogers got up, he was speaking first, all the Anti-Anti-Coke people opened up their cans at once, emitting a chorus of the unmistakable sound of a popped soda can. Rogers was a bit kooky, not quite recognizing that speaking as though he were at a labor rally was not really the best approach for the U of C. Most of the questions were softballs from Anti-Coke people.

Then the Coca-Cola representatives came up. They were, if possible, even more out of touch with the audience. They actually had a conference call with two people from God-knows-where in addition to the several people they actually had at the event. First of all, they did not recognize how ridiculous it was to have people conferencing in to a forum that was being held in a large lecture hall. They couldn't hear us and we couldn't hear them. But also, they kept fiddling with the phone, messing up who was on mute and such, and just generally bumbling. And, they kept trying to point to people who got Coca-Cola scholarships, and people they were helping in Chicago, when the whole issue was thousands of miles away in Columbia and India. We didn't care how good they were in Chicago.

At the end, there was a period of student comments. On one side, there were reiterations of the allegations, and on the other, attempted arguments with an economic basis. I think the economic arguments - the idea that if people didn't approve of Coke, they could buy less and then the school would negotiate for a lower contract with Coke - was bunk. But it was very U of C, I thought, that such arguments were even offered. And a lot of people talked about choice and freedom, and the nature of economic freedom being linked to democratic freedoms. Milton Friedman would be proud.