Undercurrent Logo

Fresno's Paper for Arts, Entertainment, News, and Political Analysis

Fresno City College students win a motion to end Killer Coke’s exclusive vending monopoly

coke.jpg

About 60 students showed up for the Board hearing. The march started at the free speech area and progressed to the district offices at Blackstone & Weldon. Two Fresno City Police Officers were on hand, the board drinking Dasani water with a long list of business for the board to take up. Everyone bunkered down in the hot cramped room, signs in hand that read such things as “Stop Killer Coke,” and “Killer Coke Off Our Campus”

The board members eyes rarely looked up from their agendas. Did this foreshadow the outcome? In fact, during the march to the district offices, several students expressed their muted excitement: “We already know the outcome.” I was also told, “They [the district board] are going to make some symbolic statement, but say they can’t support the students officially.”

When the time finally came for the board to take up the issue of vendor pouring rights, there was noticeable tension in the room. Most of the students present had worked months (or longer) on the campaign. First to speak was Jerry Bill, sociology professor at Fresno City College. Bill’s remarks were brief. He commented on a question asked at the previous board meeting, in which a board member asked, “If the students are concerned about the issue, where are the students?” Motioning with his hand, Bill said, “Here they are.” Bill went on to say, “It is a matter of conscience for the students and the board as well…. The students deserve the right to choose not to drink a beverage that conflicts with their consciences.”

Rosanna Spicer, one of the student organizers, followed Jerry Bill to the podium. Spicer held up a petition with 434 signatures of Fresno City College students who wanted Coke’s exclusive rights revoked. Rosanna said, “they [vendors with contracts with the districts] are supposed to serve us; we’re not supposed to serve them.” One of the fears of the district was the loss of monies that might occur if the contract ended. Roseanna responded to these fears by telling the board that the campaign had spoken to other vendors and that they were willing to contract with the district. As Rosanna said, “ other schools have done this and they are still here.”

Nicholas Clark, another student organizer, then walked to the podium. He passionately asked that the board listen to the students on campus, just as the campaign had listened to the students after their initial campaign of having Coke banned on campus failed. The students on campus were in favor of allowing the students a choice of beverages, rather then banning any one beverage from campus. Clark asked the board to do the same.

After Clark finished, an administration official stated that the administration, after looking over the information provided by the campaign and reexamining the issue at the behest of the board, decided that the exclusive pouring rights of Coke should be maintained. The administration official said that their findings supported their decision.

What followed took everyone by surprise. First to speak from the board was board member Dorothy Smith. In a very brief statement, she said, “I support the students’ right to choose.” Board member William J. Smith likewise made his statement brief. “We are here to serve the students…. If it doesn’t hurt us…I don’t see why we can’t honor them.” Board member Phillip J. Forhan continued the sentiment, “I support the students’ choice. I would like to make a motion to support that….To remove the monopoly.” And before Isabel Barrenas, the chair, could ask for a second, student government member Kate Blanco said that in poll conducted on campus over 1000 students supported lifting the exclusive rights; only 26 opposed.

When procedure was reestablished, board member Patrick E. Patterson asked for clarification on the motion, a motion that was pretty straightforward. Forhen clarified that the motion was to “Remove the monopoly….Campuses can choose whatever vender they want, but our decision shouldn’t preclude the students choices for ethical considerations.”

The scene that was surreal for most of the students there, as they never imagined that they might win, became all the more surreal when the questions and comments from Patrick E. Patterson seemed to be dialogue from the robber baron days. Patterson asked Forhan in disbelief, “What you’re saying is that you want to get rid of the monopoly?” Forhan reiterated his earlier motion. Patterson continued in his disbelief, “I want to know what everyone has to say…there hasn’t been a school wide vote…the faculty senate hasn’t voted.” And in a classic red herring, Patterson made the impassioned case for banning all soft drinks on campus because of their sugar content. “This is want we should be worried about, not this [the issue of Coke having exclusive rights].”

Last to speak was the Reedley student government representative, Edward Rea. Rea stated that Reedley students want an exclusive contract. Rea went on to say, “I’m looking at it as a business decision.” Being that Reedley is a smaller campus, the amount of monies lost from the contract would be a larger percentage. Rea then went on to try to lecture the Fresno City student saying, “You say you don’t drink any Coke products? Do you know that Coke makes other products other than Coke? Do you drink any of those?” The respective answers from the students were “Yes!,” “Yes!” and “No!”

After that little exchange the board asked for a roll call and vote. Yea…yea…yea…no…no…yea…yea. With that, board chair Isabel Barrenas said “Motion passed.”
Rosanna Spincer, who happened to be standing in front of me, looked extremely confused. She asked the administration representative, who spoke earlier in favor of the exclusive contract, “what happened?” “The motion passed,” he replied. Still, Rosanna seemed unsure, that was until one of the other student hugged her saying “We did it, I can’t believe it, we won!” A quick thank you to the board, which I don’t think they could hear or see, what with the students clapping and filing out of the board room, and the board continued with their business.

The student campaigners congregated outside for a while, excited and still a little unsure as to what had just taken place. Some were talking on cell phones, telling someone on the other end, “We won…no really we won…yeah, we won.” Expecting to lose, they left with unexpected smiles and hope.


Comments

Bolivians: Coca-Cola Should Drop 'Coca'

Dan Keane, March 15, 2007
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/03/bolivians-coca-cola-should-dro...

La Paz, Bolivia (AP) -- Always Coca-Cola? Not if Bolivia's coca growers have their way.

The farmers want the word "Coca" dropped by the U.S. soft drink company, arguing that the potent shrub belongs to the cultural heritage of this Andean nation, where the coca leaf infuses everyday life and is sacred to many.

A commission of coca industry representatives advising an assembly rewriting Bolivia's constitution passed a resolution Wednesday calling on the Atlanta, Ga.-based company to take "Coca" out of its name and asking the United Nations to decriminalize the leaf.

The resolution demands that "international companies that include in their commercial name the name of coca (example: Coca Cola) refrain from using the name of the sacred leaf in their products."

The commission, which met for three days in Sucre, 255 miles southeast of La Paz, is part of an effort led by President Evo Morales to rehabilitate the image of plant, used in the Andes for millennia but better known internationally as the base ingredient of cocaine.

Coca-Cola released a statement Thursday saying their trademark is "the most valuable and recognized brand in the world" and was protected under Bolivian law.

The statement repeated the company's past denials that Coca-Cola has ever used cocaine as an ingredient -- but was silent on whether the natural coca leaf was used to flavor their flagship soda.

"They need to understand our situation," said David Herrera, a state government supervisor for the coca-rich Chapare region. "They exported coca as a raw material for Coca-Cola, and we can't even freely sell it in Bolivia."

The Bolivian government regulates the sale of coca to prevent use by the drug trade.

In its natural state, the green leaf is only a mild stimulant. In Bolivia's white-collar offices, coca tea is served instead of coffee, and the country's farmers, miners and longhaul truckers chew the leaf to get through a long work day.

The government wants the U.N. to decriminalize trade in coca-based products to promote its exports.

Morales, a former coca grower, believes an international market for coca-derived products such as tea, flour, liquor, and even toothpaste would draw some of the country's estimated 65,500 acres of coca away from the drug trade.

But the United States, which funds a Bolivian coca-eradication program, is adamantly opposed to the policy, saying it only encourages more coca production.

I don't see why the UN

I don't see why the UN wouldn't decriminalize coca leafs, there are so many more plants in the world not illegal that have naturally far more potent stimulants. Mushrooms can be hallucinogenics and grow wildly but the property owners are never in any trouble unless they start picking and selling them....Poppy seeds can cause you to test positive for a drug test so how about that bagel for breakfast? Poppy plants can be grown legally and seeds are available anyplace, extracting the opium is illegal. So why not the same for the coca leaf. Obviously drug use is part the worry and people becoming addicted is another along with any criminal activity that would come with legal coca leafs. Far to many people are in drug rehab centers because of cocaine according to narconon.

You Don't Have to Ride the Fence...

Let me say that I was impressed from the start. In my experience of doing the same thing, Killer Coke campaign, at UC Berkeley and in the Bay Area; we didn't seem to have as much support as the City College students. Whatever they did they did it right. They have been involved in this campaign on campus for longer than I understood, and seemed to be getting a bit demoralized by the lack of response from other students. Thats the killer though as most people are apathetic and seem to have a difficult time caring about what they are putting into their bodies, if they are into the sugar water thing. We are also in a conservative area, and Fresno City is not known to be a hot bed of activism in recent years, though there is a strong undercurrent within certain communities on campus.

Yet in spite of all this the students were able to redirect their campaign to deal with the apathetic reality that they faced at Fresno City. They chose to make their campaign about choice, and in doing so made it nearly impossible for the Board to say no to them. In the end they even had the worst member of the board arguing to ban all sodas, and the rest of the Board talking about the Coke monopoly. So even though they did not ban Coke from campus, they achieved a significant victory that many other campuses have not been able to achieve yet. They dealt a blow to Coca Cola, and if Coke continues their practices, the students need only to pound some nails into the coffin(so to speak).

The struggle is not over though...as students will need to continue to educate the campus community about their beverage choices, but their might be a way to make this easier by ingraining it into campus culture somehow.

First the Coke monopoly, tomorrow the War...

See Ya on the Streets on the 18th - irlandeso

Back to top