According to Merriam-Webster, to boycott is to “engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.” This form of peaceful protest originates from the Ireland Land War of the 1880s, when Irish tenant farmers protested against English landlord Charles Stewart Parnell’s unfair treatment and high rent prices. Over time, however, it has evolved to become one of the most powerful protest strategies for local, national and global issues. Especially in a digital age in which protests are widely advertised, students need to be more aware of the potential impacts of boycotting and avoid performative or ineffective protests.

Differences between company and consumer values have made boycotts against consumer goods companies prevalent today. This manner of protest is successful because it leverages both economic and social influence against an organization. By inflicting reductions in revenue, boycotts force businesses to reconsider company policies to mitigate further financial damage. However, not all of these boycotts impact a company’s sales revenue, since people may publicly denounce an institution but still purchase its products out of habit. Take the recent boycott efforts with Amazon, for instance. The company has been accused of tax avoidance, poor working conditions and unethical labor practices, and as a result of the “vote with your dollar” philosophy, many people have encouraged boycotting Amazon goods. But due to the near-monopoly Amazon has on the online marketplace and society’s dependence on their unparalleled fast delivery, reliability and variety, its stocks and overall market value faced little impact from this movement.

On the other hand, companies with many competitors are most impacted by boycotts, since customers can buy substitute goods more easily. Take beer brand Bud Light: According to the Associated Press, following the April 2023 controversy regarding transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, its year-over-year sales declined 25% to 30% for several months.

Boycotts may also be ineffective if the participants aren’t the company’s target consumer. For example, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ boycotting fast-food chain KFC has had little to no financial impact to the chain since PETA is not the main consumer demographic that restaurants like KFC cater to.

Nevertheless, boycotts can wield significant damage through negative media attention and reputational damages. In the digital age, social media figures with large platforms have the power to persuade millions of people. According to LendingTree, an online marketplace nonprofit, a poll that was sent out to company consumers in 2022 reported that friends and family influence 47% of boycott decisions, politicians impact 20%, and celebrities or influencers impact 19%. 34% of Generation Z boycotters said celebrities or influencers impacted their decision to participate in a boycott. One example of this media-driven phenomenon is the boycott on Starbucks: In the early stages of the Israel-Hamas war, Starbucks Workers United, unaffiliated with the official Starbucks corporation, posted the message, “Solidarity with Palestine” on their Twitter account. Unwilling to be associated with the workers union’s stance, Starbucks released a clarifying statement and filed a lawsuit against the workers for trademark infringement of the Starbucks logo. Even though Starbucks has stated that it doesn’t directly fund the State of Israel, many people believe this boycott is a way for people to align themselves with Palestine, support an anti-violence ideology and uphold a union’s ability to express themselves politically. According to The Economic Times, Starbucks has seen a loss of $11 billion due to the recent boycotts.

Generally, successful boycotts are those that generate the most social media attention because it spurs larger collective action and allows for activists to garner more support globally. In recent years, for example, collective criticism surrounding the unethical labor practices and negative environmental impacts of Shein — a large fast-fashion clothing company — has led many to stop purchasing from the vendor. Eventually, Shein even released a statement of investigation into unsafe work conditions in some of their supplier facilities. According to data analysis company Statista, Shein saw a sales growth decrease of 2.8% in the second quarter of 2023 compared to a 341.9% increase in the first quarter of 2021. According to media analytics company Commetric, 25% of boycotts receiving national media attention won concessions from the target company.

Even though boycotts through media advocacy can be effective, they should not be relied upon as the sole tool for advocacy. As polarization increases and media becomes more saturated with campaigns, the boycotts’ effect can become diluted and less effective. Instead, this method should be used in moderation and in conjunction with other forms of protest. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, for example, went beyond boycotts to economically pressure institutions that practiced segregation: mass demonstrations such as the Selma to Montgomery march, legal struggles like Brown v. Board of Education, grassroot organizations that mobilized local leaders and individuals, media campaigns, and coalition-building with groups from diverse backgrounds to garner support. It is not any of these events in singularity that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the power and conviction of millions of people who persisted in their beliefs.

Ultimately, a boycott alone, however effective, will not define a social movement or result in substantial, legislative change — even if it achieves considerable media attraction. It is important to remember, especially in a world that increasingly prioritizes speed and efficiency, that affecting true change is difficult: It requires tremendous effort, time, patience and faith in one’s beliefs despite setbacks, and most importantly, a willingness to fight.

The abortion debate in the United States reached a turning point in the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to an abortion. Since the court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned this precedent, abortion is no longer considered a federal right, but rather a matter for each state to decide. This shift has resulted in stark contrasts between the abortion laws of states that protect access to abortion and those that have banned or restricted it. These laws, both protective or restrictive, have had tangible, immediate consequences on women’s autonomy, spurring women who may have been dispassionate before to become more politically engaged.

In this charged context, candidates are calibrating political strategies. Democrats are leveraging the issue to consolidate support among pro-choice voters by framing Republicans as staunchly anti-choice. President Joe Biden’s $25 million ad campaign “These Guys,” launched on Aug. 25, asserts that reproductive health care decisions are personal and rebukes leading Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis for their stances on abortion.

On the flip side, Republican presidential candidates’ approaches are more divided. To appeal to religious and conservative voters, several Republican candidates are adopting uncompromising pro-life positions on abortion. Republican presidential candidate Tim Scott, for example, has espoused a national ban. “Republicans should not be retreating on life,” he wrote in a July 31 post on X, formerly known as Twitter. “We need a national 15-week limit to stop blue states from pushing abortion on demand.” This stance contradicts the data from most polls, including a July 2023 Reuters/Ipsos poll, which show a majority of U.S. voters oppose presidential candidates who favor strict abortion restrictions.

On the other hand, some Republican candidates, including Trump, are steering clear of providing definite responses. In an NBC interview from September, Trump evaded questions about whether he would support a federal ban, saying he prefers that the issue be left to state legislatures.

The varying strategies in the party suggest that Republicans are attempting to walk a fine line between appealing to their core supporters and mollifying the general electorate. This balancing act becomes more complicated when considering the influence of female candidates and voters.

A Sept. 7 CNN poll showed Republican candidate Nikki Haley leading President Joe Biden by six points, establishing her as the only possible GOP contender with a clear lead over President Joe Biden in a hypothetical general election match-up. Haley signed a 20-week ban in South Carolina as governor but believes a nationwide 15-week ban is not feasible. “No Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democrat president can ban all those state laws,” she said during the first presidential debate. “Don’t make women feel like they have to decide on this issue when you know we don’t have 60 Senate votes in the House.” Her call for a national consensus on abortion includes banning late-term abortions and making contraception widely available. As the only female Republican candidate, Haley’s nuanced stance on abortion sets her apart from her male opponents and could resonate with a broader demographic, including more centrist women and young voters.

How women vote may change the outcome of the 2024 election: Women voters swinging from Trump helped deliver the White House to Biden in 2020, and midterm exit polls showed that a bump in young voters — especially women — helped Democrats keep the Senate in 2022. Today, the Democratic Party has an edge over the Republican Party in terms of young, female voters: According to a poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation, 36% of independent young female voters say Democrats best represent their abortion views compared to 13% who say Republicans best represent their views.

Furthermore, an uptick in female voter registration, indicated by a New York Times article from September 2022, suggests that women will be increasingly pivotal players in the 2024 elections. Since the June 24 Dobbs decision, 64% of new registrants in Kansas, a historically Republican-voting state, have been women. In the six months before Dobbs, women outnumbered men nationally by a three-percentage-point margin among new voter registrations. After Dobbs, that gender gap skyrocketed to 40 points.

For Democrats, focusing on female voters, particularly those who are pro-choice, could solidify a base that is already leaning their way, making them an indispensable ally for a successful campaign. Republicans, too, have a compelling reason to prioritize women, particularly those who are pro-life.

Abortion rights are an issue that crosses the boundary between policy and personal values, making it one of the most hotly debated topics of the year. Women’s reproductive health rights have been a hard-fought battle for decades, and a changing abortion-rights landscape has galvanized many women to become politically engaged. And this debate will not only take place in the presidential election — it will be held in the hallways at Gunn, in classrooms and in clubs. Gunn students, who are navigating this divisive issue amid an already polarized climate, can hopefully look to nuanced positions for a different lens through which to view the ongoing debate on abortion rights as they approach voting age. The upcoming election isn’t merely a spar between candidates but a pivotal moment that will shape the world in which students live, vote and make choices about their own bodies.

Affirmative action is defined as an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for historically underrepresented groups. While approaches can vary — some address race, while others address socioeconomic status, ability and gender — the Supreme Court specifically overruled race-conscious admissions policies that use race as a factor in deciding which qualified applicants will be admitted to universities.

Although Gunn’s counselors don’t plan on making large-scale changes in response to the ruling, they will encourage students to capture a holistic view of their identity in applications, according to Gunn college advisor “I really want to stress to the students that opportunities continue to exist in the application to express who you are,” he said. “Use these opportunities to represent your identity and what makes you unique as a person — whether that be race, background, experiences, things of that nature.”

Some universities have already facilitated this approach through changing their supplemental essay prompts for the upcoming admissions cycle. Stanford University, for example, changed a prompt asking students what was meaningful to them to one telling them to “describe what aspects of (their) life experiences, interests and character” make them good candidates for the university.

Fidani also believes that many institutions will still strive to establish diverse, inclusive communities. “The Supreme Court made a law, and colleges must respectfully abide by this. I’m encouraged by the language coming from colleges, which affirms their commitment to finding ways, within the context of the ruling, to continue to build campus communities that represent students from a wide range of backgrounds and identities.”

Still, the ruling has been jarring for students such as senior Amrit Joshi, who feels it exacerbates an already inequitable admissions process. “It goes to show what and who the system is supposed to help,” he said. “It’s not meant to help people of color, underprivileged people, minorities.”

Some point to the continued existence of legacy preferences as an example of this bias. The cases’ plaintiffs argued that Asian Americans lost out to less-qualified Black and Latino applicants. Yet many private universities continue to offer advantages to students whose parents attended or donated money to their institutions — students who are usually white and wealthy. One study based on Harvard University data found that 70% of legacy and donor-related applicants are white. Several groups filed a complaint based on these statistics following the Supreme Court decision, and the Department of Education has since launched a civil rights investigation into legacy admissions.

Moving forward, Fidani thinks that colleges and universities may begin to look to how the University of California schools — which have not used race-conscious admissions since 1996 — admit students. Although the number of Black and Latino students decreased following the ban, the UCs still have a relatively diverse student body: In 2022, 22.5% of enrollees were Latino, 4.5% were Black and 32.2% were Asian.

For senior Sophia Tilghman, this knowledge has made the Supreme Court decision less frightening. “The Supreme Court decision really does not impact me because I am intending to apply to the UCs and Cal State schools, which don’t use affirmative action,” she said.

As applicants navigate an altered landscape, they are seeking proactive approaches to come to terms with the ruling and ensure successful admissions. “I would talk to college admissions counselors and officers and ask them what they are looking for, and look around at what your peers are doing and find encouragement from others,” Joshi said.

Fidani also recommends exploring all resources the Gunn counseling team provides during the application process, including parent nights, PRIME offerings and individual meetings. “We want to encourage students to step into those and to ask questions,” he
said. “It’s a big process, and there is so much unknown, so please, share thoughts and opinions. Let’s talk and try to work them out together.”