Grapes Education Calendar - 2000

Understanding the issues that are at the foundation of the grapes discourse at Stanford is vital to making an informed and educated decision as to whether or not your dining hall should support the United Farm Workers (UFW) boycott of nonunion California table grapes. If you have not done so already, please read through the Excerpts from the Grapes Policy Committee's (GPC) Report to the President and the Provost. The information contained in the GPC Report on the history of the grapes boycott debate in California, the health impact of pesticide use, and the social and human rights concerns about farm workers is valuable for developing an opinion on this matter. The President and Provost of Stanford have given the charge to Stanford's students to determine for themselves whether or not Stanford dining halls will support the United Farm Workers boycott of non-union California table grapes.

Some arguments for SUPPORTING the Grapes Boycott

Position: I support the United Farm Workers boycott of non-union table grapes grown in California; my dining hall should NOT serve such grapes.

Health Issues: Pesticides are designed to kill living things. Table grape workers and their families are often exposed to unsafe levels of pesticides because of factors such as pesticide drift, improper usage, and accumulated daily exposure to these chemicals. Enforcement of regulations is not satisfactory or sufficient. Though three of the five most toxic pesticides that were requested by the UFW have been removed, up to twenty new carcinogenic pesticides have been introduced in the last ten years. It is unethical for students to subject farm workers to health risks.

Human Rights Concerns: Voting for the boycott extends support to the movement for better living and working conditions for farm laborers and their families, who due to the nature of the work and seasonal labor pool, lack the economic and political leverage to advocate for their rights.

Student Unity: A vote for the boycott acknowledges the concerns of members of the University community--in particular, the numerous students, faculty, and staff members who feel very strongly about these issues and for over twenty years, have actively pursued University recognition of the grapes boycott.

Economic Ramifications: Opposing the boycott or abstaining from voting is a "political" decision. By supporting the boycott, students will move the dining halls' purchasing power (and your Dining Service fees) away from the purchase of nonunion California table grapes, toward more socially responsible products. This will send a strong message to California growers to improve working conditions.

Student Voice: Students not University officials, should decide whether or not Stanford dining halls support the grapes boycott. Your vote enhances the impact of student participation in the enactment of a major University Policy. Participation allows students to take a stand on an issue of importance to your residence community.

Understanding the issues that are at the foundation of the grapes discourse at Stanford is vital to making an informed and educated decision as to whether or not your dining hall should support the United Farm Workers (UFW) boycott of nonunion California table grapes. If you have not done so already, please read through the Excerpts from the Grapes Policy Committee's (GPC) Report to the President and the Provost. The information contained in the GPC Report on the history of the grapes boycott debate in California, the health impact of pesticide use, and the social and human rights concerns about farm workers is valuable for developing an opinion on this matter. The President and Provost of Stanford have given the charge to Stanford's students to determine for themselves whether or not Stanford dining halls will support the United Farm Workers boycott of non-union California table grapes.

Some arguments for OPPOSING the Grapes Boycott

Position: I do NOT support the United Farm Workers boycott of non-union table grapes grown in California; my dining hall should serve such grapes.

Health Issues: Pesticide use is heavily regulated by the United States Government and the State of California. When grape growers use pesticides in accordance with legal standards, farm workers risk of injury is minimal. In addition, scientific studies have failed to prove that pesticide use presents a health risk to consumers. When used appropriately, pesticides are not a significant health risk to anyone.

Human Rights Concerns: The boycott is based upon a labor dispute between grape growers and a farm workers' union. As such, students should explore and pursue other means of supporting a resolution of the dispute.

Student Unity: The feelings, no matter how strongly held, of a small number of students should not determine University policy for everyone. The right to choose whether or not to consume nonunion California table grapes belongs with the individual and should not be taken away through the initiative of a small number of students.

Economic Ramifications: It is important for an institution with a population as diverse as Stanford's to be impartial. Dining Services fees should not be used to take a stand on political causes, regardless of how strongly some students feel about the issue.

Student Voice: Students, not University officials, should decide whether or not Stanford dining halls support the grapes boycott. Your vote enhances the impact of student participation in the enactment of a major University Policy. Participation allows students to take a stand on an issue of importance to your residence community.