RAND_MR1382

university send letters to companies operating in Burma, calling for corporate
withdrawal. Simons says the students believed Harvard’s name carried a lot of clout in
corporate circles. These resolutions passed in January and February 1996.
Harvard University is itself a large investor, with a $7 billion endowment. The students
decided to campaign for resolutions requiring Harvard Corp. to write to the companies
it owns stock in that deal with Burma and register its desire for divestment.
The Burma activists at Harvard also attempted to localize their campaign whenever
possible. Then they stumbled onto a link with Pepsi that allowed them to expand their
campaign into a story that would later become a splash with the media.
“At first we didn’t think we would have a Pepsi campaign at Harvard because Harvard
contracted with Coke for a long time,” Simons said. 59 Simons had been aware of the
national campaign that Burma activists were waging against PepsiCo from his
involvement with Billenness. 60 Billenness held a regular Burma Roundtable that was
advocating for a “Boycott Pepsi” campaign, in conjunction with a national group of
activists.
It was then that the Harvard Crimson ran a story stating that Harvard’s dining services
were planning on contracting with Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola. “Pepsi was trying to get
the beverage contract on campus the whole time,” Simons explained. “Coke’s dining
contract was up for renewal, and they were so dissatisfied with Coke’s service, the
dining services were thinking of going with Pepsi.” 61
The Burma activists decided to protest this contract on two fronts: first with the student
legislature and then with Harvard dining services. As part of the contract, Pepsi would
be giving $25,000 to student organizations at Harvard and $15,000 directly to the
student government. The activists’ strategy with the student legislature would be to
attack the Pepsi donations with resolutions. These resolutions called for Harvard to
explore investing options for the Pepsi contributions. They could outright refuse the
money or, ironically, donate it to Burma-friendly groups like the Boycott Pepsi
campaign. When they began investigating these options, the students discovered that
dining services had not signed the contract yet.
The students met with dining services in a lobbying effort. They also stayed in contact
over the Internet with Michael Berry, then director of dining services, and Purchasing
Director John Allegretto. Rand Kaiser, a PepsiCo representative, met with dining
services and the activists to explain Pepsi’s position. Simons says that Kaiser argued for
constructive engagement with the Burmese military junta. 62 Kaiser was successful in
casting Pepsi’s investments in Burma in a positive light. After the meeting, Simons and
Berry contacted one another over the email system. This allowed students to voice
opposing arguments to those presented by Pepsi. Simons made a deal: He told dining
services that the students would feel that they had adequate information if PepsiCo