MU Cerebellum

"Writers, especially when they act in a body and with one direction, have great influence on the public mind." -Edmund Burke

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Pepsi monopoly

Everywhere you look on Marquette's campus you see Pepsi products, which leads one to wonder "why?" From my experience in high school, I know that a company that has a contract with an institution (ie, schools) can require in the agreement that the school only serves that particular product. In Marquette's case, this would be where the Pepsi monopoly comes from.

The larger question, then, becomes, "why Pepsi?" Coca-cola is just as popular (and a better beverage if you'd like my personal opinion), and yet, it is Pepsi that holds the monopoly on this campus. This query, which has kept me up late at night this past week, has led me to search other college campuses for answers. A friend at the University of Michigan brought to light some information about the Coca-cola company that I have naturally connected to Marquette.

What I can surmise is that organizations across the United States (on college campuses in particular) believe that the Coca-cola company is responsible for the kidnapping, torturing, and murdering of labor union leaders in South America. Most notably, a website dedicated to the destruction of the Coca-cola company claims that,
In Colombia, for example, union workers who bottle Coca Cola products have been kidnapped, tortured and murdered. The largest Coca Cola union in Colombia has asked for an international campaign against Coke to stop the violence against workers, which has included a half-dozen murders at one plant alone in the mid-1990’s. Reports of these crimes sparked a historic lawsuit against the Coca Cola Company and their Colombian bottler by the International Labor Rights Fund and the United Steelworkers of America on behalf of the Colombian union.

While I cannot say for sure that the company did not partake in these awful crimes, I do believe that the groups that are calling on Coca-cola to produce evidence is entirely wrong. The burden of proof should be placed on the accusers because Coca-cola is innocent until someone else can prove their guilt.

The reason I say all this is as a postulation. I postulate that the Marquette administration made the contract with Pespi over coke, not because Fr. Wild likes Pepsi better, but because they fear the ramifications on the part of the more liberally minded faction of the campus. Most likely a good call, too; however, I really miss my coke.