Tension ran high in McPherson Lab as supporters held sleek, metal cans of Coca-Cola, while opponents of the soft drink giant displayed cardboard signs that read "Coke Kills."
The Undergraduate Student Government hosted the third and final debate Thursday night between Students Against Coke and Coca-Cola representatives. Ohio State's $30 million contract with Coca-Cola, which makes Coke the exclusive beverage supplier on campus, expires in June and there is controversy about whether the contract should be renewed.
SAC's resolution is to completely ban the sale of Coca-Cola products on the OSU campus. This pertains to Issue 4 on the USG ballot.
"We should never be lending our reputation and our name to an international outlaw like Coca-Cola," SAC Vice President Eddie Klatka said.
The debate featured SAC President Harry Lindner and Vice President Eddie Klatka versus Coca-Cola communications directors Diana Garza-Ciarlante and Kristen Witt.
Major issues debated were Coke's business in Sudan, the Coke ban at the University of Michigan, questionable treatment of Coke workers in Colombia, water depletion and pollution by Coke factories in India and Coke's unwillingness to debate anti-Coke professionals.
All accusations of foulplay were denied by the Coke representatives.
"Coca-Cola does not do business in Sudan," Witt said, "Around the world, Coca-Cola employees are free to exercise their rights."
According to The New York Times, the University of Michigan banned Coke products in 2005. According to Coca-Cola's Web site cokefacts.com, the Coke ban was lifted from the university three-and-a-half months later.
"Everyday, we strive to make positive impacts on the communities we serve," Garza-Ciarlante said.
The SAC representatives said that Coca-Cola would only agree to debate students, not anti-Coke professionals. The Coca-Cola representatives did not address this issue, despite prodding from the audience and SAC representatives.
Students attending the debate acknowledged the disadvantage the SAC team appeared to face.
"I think it's obvious they used the gender card," said Jillian Persall, a senior in international studies, of the female Coke representatives. "Their relaxed appearance - no power suits - gave the impression that they were very pro-working class."
However, some students were critical of SAC's Lindner and Klatka as well as the audible responses - including the phrases "fascism," "brainwashing," "censorship" and inarticulate booing and catcalling - from the anti-Coke supporters.
"I think the anti-Coke students are so immature it's made this debate a circus," said Margaret Wingenfeld, an undecided freshman. Wingenfeld originally came to the debate as an anti-Coke supporter.
However, staunch anti-Coke supporters including Andrea Jaeger, president of the student organization Free the Planet, were enthusiastic about the debate.
"It's disgusting to see all these people supporting Coke just to keep funding," said Jaeger, a sophomore in geography.
The debate ended in cordial handshakes among those who debated and students lingered to discuss the future of Coke on campus.
Angela Henderson can be reached at henderson.419@osu.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 20
odemaris Irizarry
posted 4/07/08 @ 12:47 PM EST
If you don't want Coke then it is going to be Pepsi! there are no other choice!! we are going to die anyways either of too much coke, pepsi, beer, shopping for shoes, taking the bus, talking too much on the cell phone or walking in front of cars when crossing the streets. (Continued…)
Lew Friedman
posted 4/07/08 @ 4:55 PM EST
Coke representative Kristen Witt said at the Coke debate: "Coca-Cola does not do business in Sudan."
That is absolutely a lie or is Ms. Witt totally misinformed about her own company? The New York Times reported on 10/24/06: "In 2002, Sudanese investors opened a new Coca-Cola factory, with Coke syrup legally exported to Sudan under an exemption for food and medicine. (Continued…)
Lew Friedman
Lew Friedman
posted 4/07/08 @ 4:59 PM EST
Coke representative Kristen Witt said at the Coke debate: "Coca-Cola does not do business in Sudan."
That is absolutely a lie or is Ms. Witt totally misinformed about her own company? The New York Times reported on 10/24/06: "In 2002, Sudanese investors opened a new Coca-Cola factory, with Coke syrup legally exported to Sudan under an exemption for food and medicine. (Continued…)
Michelle
posted 4/07/08 @ 7:40 PM EST
"We don't do business in Sudan" might just mean that Coke doesn't own a factory there. That's different than saying "we don't sell our products to people in Sudan". (Continued…)
Coke is Cool
posted 4/07/08 @ 8:54 PM EST
Coke is a refreshing tasty beverage that fits in with many different meals. They are just a company trying to make money, they don't promote any violence or wrongdoing around the world. (Continued…)
Emmett Hoveh
posted 4/08/08 @ 1:46 AM EST
Yeah, odemaris, Pepsi tastes like crap compared to Coke too.
I don't know how I feel about this whole issue. Any corporation that gets a lot of money seems to get its hands bloody at some point, and I wish it weren't the case, and I'm also sure Pepsi is guilty of the same kind of international transgressions. (Continued…)
Scott
posted 4/08/08 @ 10:03 AM EST
Can we keep coke, but start serving Mountain Dew as well....that's the one thing I really hate about a Coke campus, no MD....I need to Do the Dew.
Jerry
posted 4/08/08 @ 10:18 AM EST
George Washington warned us to stay away from foreign entanglements, yet the United States just isn't happy unless we have our nose up someone else's business. (Continued…)
Alli S
posted 4/08/08 @ 11:40 AM EST
The best part of this whole debacle is either the Anti-Coke people are bullshitting in order to get Pepsi on campus or have no alternative to Coke at all. (Continued…)
Daniel
posted 4/08/08 @ 1:42 PM EST
Congratulations, Mr. Friedman.
You and your fellow supporters are so obnoxious, so immature, and so revoltingly self-righteous that I've decided to vote in the upcoming USG election. (Continued…)
Post a Comment