W hen Pepsi announced its plans to withdraw completely from Burma, human rights activists around the world celebrated a victory. For years, activist groups have fought arduously to encourage large corporations such as PepsiCo to invest responsibly. Pepsi's retreat, precipitated by growing international awareness of the Burmese military's crimes, thus marks a significant achievement. Human rights advocates and environmentalists can legitimately claim that exerting serious, continuous, and threatening pressure on multinational corporations results in tangible success. Through extensive targeting of Pepsi products--from boycotts to protests--activists were able to disperse the message throughout the corporate world that social responsibility has become an economic incentive.
The Harvard campus was instrumental in calling attention to Pepsi's involvement in Burma. When Harvard's dining services rejected the multi-million-dollar contract with Pepsi in 1996, a move motivated in part by active student opposition, other college campuses followed, and student activism around the country sprang up in response to the military regime's suppression of pro-democracy groups. Very soon after Harvard rejected the contract, Stanford also voiced opposition to university investment in Pepsi, and together, both campuses brought Pepsi's involvement in Burma to the fore on other campuses.
As a visible institution, Harvard University has a responsibility to continue to set an example for campuses around the country. Unfortunately, the administration rarely challenges irresponsible investments of its own initiative--Harvard is, after all, itself a corporation which aims most often to maximize its own endowment. It therefore remains incumbent on the students to be alert to the university's policies and their implications for human rights and environmental concerns.
The Harvard students who organized the campaign ensured that this campus remain a leader not only in academic matters, but also in social and international questions of human rights. Harvard student activism, contributing to the ongoing efforts of full-time organizations throughout the world, demanded that visible aspects of student life remain consistent with general principles of economic equity. The canceled Pepsi contract is just one example of how effective student activism can influence University policies that have ramifications extending beyond the Harvard community.
We students who form the very foundation of the university community too rarely question the institution to which we belong. The Pepsi contract was a prominent example of how closely Harvard interacts with multinational corporations; indeed, Harvard invests in many corporations for whom social justice is simply an obstacle. When we do not challenge these investments--when we do not demand that Harvard act as a responsible member of the international community--we must be willing to accept some of the responsibility for encouraging corporations to abuse nations and individuals. Through our silence, we acquiesce.
The Pepsi victory, however, should not halt activist efforts. Despite Pepsi's withdrawal, several multinational corporations continue to support the military dictatorship through their continued involvement in the Burmese economy. Oil companies, such as UNOCAL, Texaco, and Arco, are notorious for investing in political oppression; others such as Shell, Chevron, and Mobil, invest in Nigeria, which is also controlled by a military regime. One of the worst corporations remains Mitsubishi, whose rain forest logging and oil practices ravage local communities and environments. The Harvard community should take a more active role in fighting to discourage such irresponsible corporations from reaping economic rewards; by divesting from certain corporations whose practices threaten human rights and environmental concerns, we could send a powerful message to the corporate world and help to improve the condition of life far beyond the Yard.