With the recent boycott of Coca-Cola products on campus, it pays to think about boycotts in general — at their best, noble actions taken for noble reasons. A boycott can be an incredible and effective show of support for a just cause. Repeat: can be. The boycott of Coke is anything but.

In elementary school we all learned about the struggle for civil rights and one of the most important things, and most impressive things, we heard about was the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955. On Dec. 1, 1955, an African-American woman named Rosa Parks broke local and Alabama state laws when she refused to give up her seat to a white man on the bus. Starting on Dec. 5 nearly all members of the African-American community, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, refused to ride buses — a major stand against discrimination and segregation, and one that ultimately paid off when on Nov. 13, 1956 the Supreme Court ruled that local and statewide bus segregation laws were illegal.

What made this boycott so remarkable, so impressive and so persuasive was that it was the decision of a group of individuals, united by a common stance against the injustices they had to face. A boycott is effective because it is a show of mass support, where every individual member participating in the boycott says that he or she will not use this service or buy that product.

So what makes the boycott of Coca-Cola products different? It’s very simple: the decision has been taken out of the students’ hands. I was shocked on the evening of Thursday, Nov. 18, when, while copy-editing for the Review, I read the first line of the article “College set to ban Coca-Cola”: “The College has decided to immediately stop selling Coca-Cola products based on the recommendation of the College Purchasing Committee.”

The College has decided. Not I. Not the students. Students who are opposed to Coke based on the company’s alleged human rights violations cannot individually determine not to purchase Coca-Cola products because those products will not be available to boycott. And very importantly, students who are not opposed to Coke — like, for instance, me — have no choice but to participate in a cause we do not believe in.

This is contrary to the very nature of a boycott. Rather than allowing students to make what the College administration seems to see as the correct moral decision, the College has made it for us — hardly the way to treat a group of adults perfectly capable of making our own decisions. Would the Montgomery Bus Boycott have been effective if King had legal power over the African-American community and forced them not to ride the bus? Would it have been effective if the boycott happened because of a local law preventing black people from riding?

So, what happens if the College doesn’t boycott Coca-Cola? Well, that would enable students to make a far more impressive impact by enacting the boycott in the traditional fashion — as a group of individuals consciously acting as a collective. If the boycott takes hold within the student body, there will be no demand for Coke. If there is no demand there will be no supply. We’ll have the same result, a lack of Coke on campus, but at least in this case it would be the students’ choice and not the College’s.

And what of the allegations themselves? Coca-Cola has been accused of complicity in the murders of eight leaders of the trade union Sinaltrainal — unproven charges, but possibly true. Is Coca-Cola, as a global corporation, responsible for these actions, or lack of actions? There is clearly reason for continued investigation into the charges — a U.S. court case ruled as much — but how logical is it to show solidarity behind a cause that remains unproven? And how fair is it to force students who may not think the charges are grounded to remain part of it?

One must also consider, what other companies are involved in alleged wrongdoings? Will we have to boycott Pepsi at some point? What about coffee? I wonder how the College would react to that proposition.

As for me, I have always been a fan of Coca-Cola — and not just the drink, either, even though I keep my refrigerator well-stocked with Vanilla Coke at all times. To me, the company showed a surprisingly positive moral stance years ago, during a number of Arab nations’ 40-year commercial boycott of Israel. Pepsi sold its product only to Arab nations, bowing to the threat that, should Pepsi sell to Israel, the Arab nations would not buy Pepsi. On the other hand, Coca-Cola, faced with the same threat, decided to sell only to Israel, defying the anti-Semitic pressures of the region.

Yes, this happened a long time ago, but to me it is cause enough to give Coca-Cola the benefit of the doubt and not make a rash decision without proof. I do not want to take the path of perceived righteousness or self-righteousness. I prefer the path of refreshing deliciousness.

But of course, I don’t have a choice.