Put your money where your mouth is

In his lecture at Low Library this Monday, sustainable-food-movement guru Michael Pollan argued that the sticker price of food is deceptive. Hidden externalities, he pointed out, suggest that the price of a tomato is criminally low. The type of investigation that Pollan has mastered makes it obvious that we pay heavily for “cheap,” convenient food in taxpayer subsidies, labor wages that qualify as human rights abuses, and rising health-care costs due to diet-related illness. The true cost of food is obscured by both corporate deception and popular apathy, but it is being uncovered by the likes of Pollan.

Americans’ power in this free-market orgy of profitable abuses lies in using our knowledge of business practices to make different consumer choices. We’d rather vote with our vote than our pocketbooks, but hey, we’ve come to terms with capitalist democracy. Consciously spent money can redirect corporate practice. Pollan advised that we start by “voting with our forks,” but in truth we make a political choice with every purchase. Do I buy the child-labor Gap jeans or the more expensive pair from American Apparel? Do I factor in distance traveled for my cotton linens as I might for my Hass avocado? And on it goes­—every greenback that enters the till is a chance to consciously act on a range of progressive values.

As ethical consumption gains traction, some of our peers are taking the issue to school administrators. At the University of Michigan, for example, student pressure helped establish a fabulous code of conduct for university purchasing. Columbia’s Students for Economic and Environmental Justice has just begun a similar campaign of its own. Using Michigan as a model, SEEJ hopes to create a set of standards for all Columbia purchasing. At the moment, there are surprisingly few regulations governing where the administration can spend its money. Battles to win over the hearts and minds of Columbia’s Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing members are well known among campus activists, but what of the innumerable cheese trays that adorn meeting side-tables, and what of the tables themselves, for that matter? Columbia is making consumer choices all the time, but doing it in the dark.

It would admittedly be impossible to compile a comprehensive list of companies that every brand of liberals found morally conscionable. The University of Michigan has made no such quixotic attempt. Instead, they compiled a basic list of practices that are either considered unacceptable or earn companies preferential treatment. According to the document, Michigan will not do business with companies that break the law; discriminate based on identity; prevent unionization of workers; refuse fair wages, leaves, hours, or health conditions for their workers; employ children; force labor; or engage in any kind of harassment or abuse. By the same token, companies are preferred if they provide living wages, abide by international human rights, and comply with foreign law. The list is actually quite short, and yet the major points of any progressive agenda are addressed. It seems set for implementation at Columbia, perhaps with a few environmental addenda.

We would like Columbia to take this one step further. A student choice between Starbucks and Oren’s looks rather impotent next to Columbia’s six-figure checks. The school has a tremendous amount of influence that can be used in support of our proclaimed institutional values. Our mission statement includes this pomposity: “It [Columbia University] expects all areas of the university to advance knowledge and learning at the highest level and to convey the products of its efforts to the world.” Well, before we get to the entire world, we can certainly begin with the University. We must insist on doing business with companies that have demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with labor. We must take a deeper, more investigative look at where our food comes from and not just accept a company’s rote answer that it does not engage in slave labor (ignoring the rest of the supply chain)? Rather than simply avoiding embarrassment, Columbia ought to actively support the best business practices through the weight of its funds. Meanwhile, student attention can ensure that enforcement is strong.

There is certainly hope for this sort of action. We have already mentioned SEEJ’s excellent work, and hope that it reaches fruition. Last year, the University Senate’s External Relations Committee discussed the University of Michigan’s plan and its implications for Columbia, but failed to continue working on the issue much past the point of discussion. A liberal-arts school that exists to teach its students how to think about complex ethical and political questions ought know the answers to some very simple ones. Are we responsible for the human effects of our dollars? Are the University administration and the student body willing to step out of the easy cycle of lowest-bid consumerism? Let’s hope the University Senate sees fit to get involved again and convey student support for SEEJ’s forthcoming proposal.

Sarah Leonard is a Columbia College junior majoring in history. Kate Redburn is a Columbia College junior majoring in history and African studies. Shock and Awe runs alternate Fridays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com