~~~~~

"At the same time that the nation has been kicking Joe Camel out the back door for corrupting kids, it has been opening wide the schoolhouse front doors to the purveyors of candy, soft drinks, fast food and snack food, often granting them exclusive run of the place and advertising bragging rights...."

"A Garden Grove elementary school's students assembled for a cereal maker's rally last year to collect certain box tops for money for the school. A Chula Vista school district cut a $4.45-million, 10-year exclusive Pepsi deal. (San Diego is about to go for a $23.5-million, 10-year deal making Pepsi the official and exclusive city soft drink.) I don't know whether it's a testament to the ethics or to the chaos at the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second largest, that it hasn't yet cashed in big on the cola wars or other free lunch deals...."

"The Mazzoni measure would also ban a bit of language that advertisers have put into some school contracts--the "anti-disparagement clause," a kind of gag order barring school officials from speaking ill of the sponsor's product. A Georgia teenager who wore a Pepsi shirt on his school's Coke Day was suspended for a day."

To read the whole of the article go here

"...Followed by a pep rally for our league-leading varsity football team, sponsored by Pepsi. Remember it's a Pepsi world� and we're a Pepsi school�!"

------------------
You can only take offense if you brought some with you.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

I have no major problem with a school or a district making a deal with say Coke to sell the product in the dending machines. Yet "Deals made by schools nationwide have slapped ads on the buses students ride, the school lunch menus they read, on hallway posters and textbook covers." go way to far.

And the sheer absurdity that a teenager who wore a Pepsi shirt on his school's Coke Day was suspended is beyond stupid. That public schools should seek out, and then be forced to depend on the funds, as surely they will be in time, is ludicrous.

I think that beyond the surface question of what extent we allow the coroprate greedy fingers around our collective necks, there is a very serious question of public and political apathy towards funding education in the United States, else school systems would not be signing deals with Coke for sponsorship.

Take also the state of children's televison and movies made for kiddies. They are mainly platforms for the corporations to market toys associated with the program.

This chemistry class brought to you by Snickers.

It has happened at my university several times in the last few years. That is why I am totally against any company paying money to get a foothold in any school, hospital, university, etc.

Oh, and this is why I hate right-wingers so much. They think that it is okay for such crap to happen around here.

------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation

But really, the article was about ads in schools. I had ads in my school. For Peach Fuzz or Fuzzy Peach candies. And I think the fact that I can't remember the name of the candy should go a long way to showing how much of a drone I've been turned into. The only result was more money for my school, which was probably all gobbled up by "civil servents" anyway, but that's a topic for another thread.

------------------
"There comes a time in every woman's life when the only thing that helps is a glass of champagne."

I did hear of a school which had a deal with Nike which would allow advertising of expensive shoes in their schools. Two things point out in my mind: First is that Nike is making money off of ya with their grossly expensive footwear (which is only worth half of what it costs); and secondly, kids do not know how these shoes are made, how they are created from slave labour. This is definitely a poor influence. Had it not been for the parents' council, this kind of indifference would spread like a wildfire in our school system.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

<RANT>As long as we're talking about ridding our schools of undue influences, let's talk about the one that bugged us the most when we were in school. I refer, of course, to teachers.

Mind you, these "teachers" are trying to indoctrinate us into society, not for our own good, but for the good of "society", and ultimately, the Corporations. Let's face it, folks -- schools are a government plot to suck our brains out and replace them with the phrases "Yes, boss; No, Boss; Right away, boss."

It may come as a complete surprise to many of you, but the government pays large sums to our schoolss right now! No, really! Don't look at me that way. It's true! And just what do you suppose the government is expecting for it's many "public school" dollars? Let's see, would they want free-thinking iconoclasts who are willing to use facts to draw conclusions? Or perhaps what they really want is someone who will sit down, shut up, and turn to the same page everyone else is on?

I won't tell you what to think, but I think you get the picture anyway</RANT>

On a more serious note, I have been exposed to advertising of one sort or another for most of my life. I think I have learned that the sponsor for any product is not interested in telling you the truth if he thinks telling you anything else is gonna convince you to part with your money quicker. I think we have all met the few wierdos who insist that no advertiser would lie, and I'm certain that most of us know a sales pitch when we hear one.

So what's the beef? Let Nike, Coke, Kleenex and Miller pay for books, buildings and utilities for schools. If you don't spend all your money on some sponsor's product just because they advertise during your favorite program, then why is it sinister for them to try to get some exposure to a group that is as cynical as they come (high-schoolers)?

Of course, if they're gonna pay, they're gonna play, too. I would find it difficult to believe that heads did not roll and that money (or product) wasn't forked over when the student wore a Pepsi shirt on "Coke day". In any case, I'm certain that Pepsi would be more than happy to raise the First Amendment banner in defense of this poor, put-upon student who prefers their product.

--Baloo

------------------
We are born naked, wet, and hungry.
Then things get worse.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

------------------
"There comes a time in every woman's life when the only thing that helps is a glass of champagne."

Yikes, did I just type that?

Anyway, where exactly is the line between corporate sponsorship and overt corporate control? Don't our children have the right to learn in an environment free of such crass commercialism? I mean, I'm not saying that sponsorship is wrong. After all, I went to a Pepsi school. Our greatest rival was Zillah, which just happened to be a Coke school. I drink nothing but Pepsi, and wouldn't touch Coke. Oftentimes our two schools would come dang close to out and out violence. Coincidence? Most likely.

I think you can have sponsorship without problems. But where does it end? How long before the school isn't just sponsored by Pepsi, but run by them too? After all, we see a great surge towards privatization in society. Companies to run Social Security, companies to pick up the garbage. Companies to run the schools, too? Would students learn about the dangers of fossil fuels at Exxon High School? Something to think about, anyway.

------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants

Letse now. At the University of Toronto, we have the "Scotiabank" Information Commons, the "Joseph Rotman" school of Management (Rotman is a right-wing businessman), some institution named after Peter Munk (another right winger, and President of Barrick corp, another Big Business). Now the one involving Munk is interesting. He's a pal of Former US prez George Bush, who recently got an honourary Doctorate here at U-of-T. I wonder whose idea it was to give such a degree to Bush in the first place.........

The last straw in my mind is something involving Conrad Black (newspaper magnate and ANOTHER right winger). I heard he said something about anyone who doesn't support the right-wing agenda "should be publically horsewhipped".

Now, please try to explain to ME that companies are not having an influence on our public institutions.........