A Definite 'Maybe'

It took about two weeks for the movement to boycott Nestle's Corporation to grow from a dining hall petition to the topic of primary debate in the Student Assembly and the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL). For a while, it even looked as though the University Food Services would actually accede to the demands and stop buying Nestle's products.

But by Thursday, it was clear exactly what the University was going to do--in the time-honored-tradition of the bureaucracy, ambiguity became the word of the week.

Monday night, CHUL voted by a lopsided majority of 17-2, with four abstentions, to support the boycott. The movement protests Nestle's practice of supplying Third-World mothers with infant formula which they later find unaffordable or mix with bad water, causing malnutrition in their children.

It also seemed, on Monday, that Frank J. Weissbecker, director of Food Services, would abide by the boycott even though Faculty members of CHUL had opposed the boycott, asking instead that Nestle's be given a chance to defend itself.

However, on Thursday, it became apparent that there was some waffling to be done.

Weissbecker said that he had agreed to the boycott only if told to do so by the administration. Administrators said that the issue would be decided by Joe B. Wyatt, vice president for administration; and Wyatt said, "It's a complex issue that is a matter of institutional policy."

Student boycott organizers were dismayed at this apparent backtracking by the University. William G. Mayer '79 summed it up by saying, "I'm mad as hell that they're playing this game that they interpret everything a second time in a kind of double-fink."

Double-fink or no, the boycott is yet another issue that the University will decide while being watched closely by student protesters. The symptoms of administrative discomfort are already apparent.