On Sunday, Oct. 1, students received an e-mail from Senate asking whether they wanted to “pop Wal-Mart like a zit.” This e-mail solicited student input regarding a proposed bill in Senate which, if passed, would prevent the Student Finance Committee from reimbursing student organizations for Wal-Mart purchases. This proposal, despite the appearance of good intentions, directly infringes upon student liberty and cannot be justified on the basis of town-gown solidarity.

Primarily, the proposed bill prevents students from exercising their right to free speech. Beyond purely verbal speech, this right also affords every individual the freedom to articulate his or her preferences monetarily; for example, an individual has the right to invest in organizations, political candidates or businesses of his or her choice — and the right not to. By preventing students from exercising this right, this proposed bill runs contrary not only to Oberlin’s tradition of championing individual liberty but also to the tenets of the Constitution.

Indeed, the bill would usurp from individuals this freedom of speech in order to exercise speech as a collective entity. The benefit to such an approach is obvious: Oberlin students together can make a stronger political statement than can each individual alone. Oberlin implemented an ostensibly similar policy through its purchasing ban on Coca-Cola products. Senate’s current proposal, however, differs significantly from the Coca-Cola ban; the Coca-Cola ban does not prevent individuals from purchasing Coca-Cola products from off-campus vendors, and thereby facilitates the very economic freedom that Senate’s proposed Wal-Mart bill denies and appropriates.

Moreover, the labor issues surrounding Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart differ in degree of accountability and therefore require different activist responses. At the time the Coca-Cola ban was enacted, the company was not held accountable or investigated by any independent, third-party organization despite allegations of kidnapping, homicides and anti-union measures. Wal-Mart, however, has been held accountable for gender discrimination in labor practices via a law suit and for low-wages via ballot initiatives. On Tuesday, Nov. 7, registered Ohio voters can vote for a ballot initiative to raise the state minimum wage. Last fall, Oberlin voters rejected the living wage initiative. Both of these initiatives represent ways in which individual can exercise his or her freedom of speech and potentially alter Wal-Mart’s labor practices.

Furthermore, the bill cannot be redeemed on the grounds of expressing solidarity with the town. The sentiment of protecting local businesses is commendable, but the proposed bill ignores the effect on a very likely constituent of the town: the Wal-Mart worker. This worker undoubtedly benefits from employment and employment prospects at Wal-Mart are dictated at least in part by Wal-Mart’s economic success. Thus, if the College wishes to express solidarity with the town, it cannot do so by means of legislation that prioritizes certain facets of society over others.

It is refreshing to see Senate address a difficult, highly relevant issue. Senate deserves particular praise for actively seeking out student input. The intentions of expressing solidarity with the town and condemning Wal-Mart’s labor practices are also admirable. Nonetheless, this proposal calls for a gross usurpation of individual liberty, presents a questionable effect upon all strata of Oberlin society and ignores pre-existing methods for redress. We urge Senate to abandon this particular proposal.