The Case Against Boycotting Soda Stream At Harvard
Alan Dershowitz has a well-argued piece in the Harvard Crimson on Harvard University Dining Services' decision to boycott SodaStream products.
But first, the background, from a story by Marie A. Klein and Theodore R. Delwiche in the Crimson:
Harvard University Dining Services had suspended purchases of soda water machines from an Israeli company associated with an international settlement dispute, University President Drew G. Faust has requested an investigation into the decision, according to Provost Alan M. Garber '76.Last spring, HUDS stopped purchasing SodaStream water machines following complaints from members of the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Harvard Islamic Society, who raised concerns to administrators that the appliances could offend Palestinian students. The company's main factory is currently located in the West Bank, a site of conflict over land ownership between Israel and Palestine. The company recently announced plans to move the factory to another location.
An excerpt from Dershowitz's piece, which has many other good points:
The students who sought the boycott of SodaStream invoked human rights. But it is they who are causing the firing of more than 500 Palestinian workers who would like to continue to earn a living at SodaStream. As a result of misguided boycotts, such as the one unilaterally adopted by the Harvard University Dining Services, SodaStream has been forced to move its factory to an area in Israel where few, if any, Arabs can be employed. This is not a victory for human rights. It is a victory for human wrongs.I have no doubt that some students and other members of the Harvard community may be offended by the presence of SodaStream machines. Let them show their displeasure by not using the machines instead of preventing others who are not offended from obtaining their health benefits. Many students are also offended by their removal. Why should the views of the former prevail over those of the latter? I'm sure that some students are offended by any products made in Israel, just as some are offended by products made in Arab or Muslim countries that oppress gays, Christians and women. Why should the Harvard University Dining Service--or a few handfuls of students-- get to decide whose feelings of being offended count and whose don't?
In addition to the substantive error made by HUDS, there is also an important issue of process. What right does a Harvard University entity have to join the boycott movement against Israel without full and open discussion by the entire university community, including students, faculty, alumni and administration? Even the president and provost were unaware of this divisive decision until they read about it in the Crimson. As Provost Alan M. Garber '76 wrote, "Harvard University's procurement decisions should not and will not be driven by individuals' views of highly contested matters of political controversy."
Were those who made the boycott decision even aware of the arguments on the other side, such as those listed above? The decision of the HUDS must be rescinded immediately and a process should be instituted for discussing this issue openly with all points of view and all members of the university community represented. The end result should be freedom of choice: those who disapprove of SodaStream should be free to drink Pepsi. But those who don't disapprove should be free to drink SodaStream.
Augh the anti-soda stream people ...
We own a soda stream. My boyfriend loves his fizzy water, so I got him one for his bday (although I think it's a money-guzzling monstrosity). A friend's girlfriend was over, she saw it and said "I'm not sure if you know but ..." and launched into the soda stream's origin story, which, of course, I already knew. I explained that I already knew and had bought the product knowing it.
She then mumbled, "Well, I just wanted to make sure you were aware."
Yeah thanks. Even if I hadn't known, did you honestly think I was going to immediately haul the $200 machine to the dumpster, thanking you profusely all the way?
sofar at December 19, 2014 8:19 AM
This is the root of all of this over-the-top PC-ness:
"... the Harvard community may be offended by the presence of SodaStream machines. ... Many students are also offended by their removal. Why should the views of the former prevail over those of the latter? "
They prevail because it's easier (and more effective to the cause) to be loud about an issue, than it is to be appropriately quiet about it.
flbeachmom at December 19, 2014 9:30 AM
I'm sure Harvard has no issue with buying products from the rocket-firing areas of Gaza... oh, wait, those people don't make anything. They just beg for "humanitarian aid" and then use it to kill people.
Cousin Dave at December 19, 2014 12:39 PM
"But it is they who are causing the firing of more than 500 Palestinian workers who would like to continue to earn a living at SodaStream." AlanD.
sorry Alan, the boycott people probably think those 500 people shouldn't be working there anyway, 'cuz, Israel, you know?
This world is full of wrongs, real and imagined, but what do these rich kids worry about? The ones they can fix that are closeby? Or the ones that are faraway, but only cost outrage, you don't actually have TO DO anything.
And so it goes, and so it went long ago. NOthing much changes.
SwissArmyD at December 19, 2014 12:52 PM
They didn't just get 500 "Palestinians" fired from their job -- they got them fired from jobs that paid far better than non-Israeli companies in the area pay, including the Palestinian Authority itself.
David at December 20, 2014 1:00 PM
I've had no desire to get a soda stream or many of the other over-priced gadgets; but, whenever someone on the left says to boycott - well, I just want to go buy one!
Many years ago, some idiots were staging a boycott in front of a store that sold some Israeli products. I just had to go buy something. I ended up buying these somewhat overpriced sugar wafers - they were over 2 dollars for a little package - and they were delicious. Instead of the plain vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry that we can normally buy here in the US. This brand had rather exotic flavors like mango, pineapple, and so on. I really enjoyed the coffee ones. And continued to buy them for several years afterwards.
So, in one sense their attempts of a boycott backfired.
Charles at December 20, 2014 2:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/12/19/the_case_agains_2.html#comment-5677674">comment from CharlesI'm with you, Charles.
And exactly right about them getting them fired from jobs that paid better than non-Israeli ones!
Amy Alkon at December 20, 2014 3:03 PM
Leave a comment