Loyola University-Chicago has been treated to left-wing student drive called “The Campaign to Stop Killer Coke.” Since universities grant beverages access in return for financial concessions as a regular part of their activities—the money going to worthwhile student activities—the “Campaign to Stop Killer Coke” has mounted a media campaign to influence business decisions by the university. But the “Killer Coke” campaign has egg on its face when the facts are examined. .

The hyperbolic campaign insists certain facts are “undisputed.” Such is not the case. It claims Columbian Coca-Cola bottlers, with the help of “death squads” trained by the United States military, are murdering union organizers…that eight bottler employees were killed between 1990 and 2002; all were targeted by right-wing paramilitary groups funded by Coca-Cola bottlers…and finally that Coca-Cola’s bottlers provide poor working conditions, poor wages, and work aggressively to abridge freedom of association. All of this might justify a boycott—if true. .

But none of this is even remotely true.

Judicial bodies in Columbia and the United States cleared Coke of any wrongdoing. In some of the eight alleged cases, those responsible, with no ties to Coca-Cola or its bottlers, have come forward and plead guilty to the murders. SINALTRAINBEC, a Columbia union for bottlers, also found “not a single indication” that Coca-Cola bottlers had any part in the murdering of union organizers. In fact, The Cal Safety Compliance Corporation, an independent assessor of workplace conditions, concluded that Coca-Cola bottler employees in Columbia are not subject to intimidation, threats, or violence from their management. Quite the contrary. Employees of Columbian Coca-Cola bottlers enjoy a comfortable environment of job security amidst permeating violence against union organizers in other Columbian sectors. FEMSA, Coca-Cola’s largest bottler in Columbia, is thirty-one percent unionized––standing in stark contrast to the national statistic of only four percent.

What’s more, Coca-Cola bottlers have become pillars of Columbian cities. Whether it be the significantly higher wages for its employees (thirty percent higher than the national average) or its fostering of children’s education in its surrounding communities, Coca-Cola’s commitment to the human dignity of each Columbian can speak volumes above whatever the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke propagates.

Unfortunately, an open discussion concerning these allegations cannot be had.

The “Campaign to Stop Killer Coke: has been befriended by the radical Left on college campuses. With the encouragement of aging `60s radical professors, these fringe groups can continue to shout down any legitimate discussion because of the national appeal of this Campaign––without the Campaign’s money, the campus Left would be consigned to the periodic anti-war demonstration and its annual pittance donation to Amnesty International. .

As such, college campuses have often become a hot-house for I-regret-being-white-and-boy-do-I-wish-I-was-really-oppressed “humanitarian” causes. Campuses have been politicized and are used for Berkeley-flavored indoctrination. The university must be a marketplace of ideas, where a sincere, yet vigorous dialogue of ideas remains paramount.

Despite actions of well-funded Leftist groups on campus to squelch dialogue, a grassroots movement on many campuses has risen up and defeated the anti-Coke agenda. DePaul University, for example, was willing to renew Coca-Cola’s expiring contract amidst the Leftist onslaught. DePaul students now drink Pepsi not because of the Leftist agenda, but because of capitalism. Coca-Cola waived its right to “first negotiation” of a new contract and entered freely into a competitive bidding process. Pepsi offered the most lucrative and beneficial contract for DePaul. Clearly, competition within the free market prevailed and the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke failed miserably.

Coca-Cola has done more for the poor than the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke or campus Leftists. Columbian communities surrounding Coca-Cola bottlers enjoy a prosperous and open society. The bottlers employ thousands and spark considerable economic growth in ways that lift Columbians out of poverty. Alas, a boycott of Coca-Cola––eventually forcing the Company to dismiss bottling employees in Columbia and the United States––would bind the poor with a tighter rope. It is for these reasons why the International Union of Food workers has rejected the boycott of Coca-Cola stating that it does “nothing to help the cause of the unions that organize and represent Coca-Cola workers around the world.”

As I write this, Loyola University administrators in Chicago are reviewing the possibility of discontinuing its Coca-Cola contract. I encourage the students, faculty, and administration of Loyola to resist being hustled by a vacuous emotional campaign without substance.

______________________________-

Nicholas Hahn III, a student at DePaul, has been cited as one of the nation’s top conservative young leaders. He is a regular columnist for The Chicago Daily Observer and a member of its editorial board