TOMS Debate at Ithaca College

There is an interesting debate going on right now on the website for Buzzsaw, Ithaca College's independent student-run magazine.

In "Why I Hate TOMS Shoes," Topher Hendricks offers a compelling argument, if perhaps it took some discussion in the comments section to get there. Two points on this:

1. Comments are a great way to raise discussions and clarify points. That being said, it is best when the community is small, so that the discussion is not quickly swamped by a flood of comments. I try my hardest not to get sucked into comments sections on most blogs I read because the responses are inane and not interested in fostering conversation. (A few of these comments admittedly did appear in the Buzzsaw comments, but represented a small quantity and percentage of the total comments.)
2. Bravo to the author for responding to comments. In this case, it really helped to clarify his position. Comments served as a learning experience for the writer, readers, and commenters.

The piece is written in that classic angsty style college publications are famous for. It's well-reasoned, but needless flourishes like referring to TOMS CEO Blake Mycoskie as "Blakey boy" in parentheses do nothing to advance the argument. [caveat: I did once refer to Rick Reilly as a "Pompous Asshat" in the title of a piece.] That being said, referring to someone as a "douche" and then referring to oneself as a "douche" as well is a great move. Self deprecation is a great tool for winning people over. See also Hunter S. Thompson.

Hendricks notes that he will soon receive the shoes as a reward for a credit card, which raising a hairy issue. Getting the shoes for free exonerates no one, but on the other hand, half of his reward will support someone "in need." Maybe even the person who made the shoes, if indeed TOMS manufacturing practices are as cheery as they'd lead you to believe.

The fact that the shoes come for credit card usage is complexified by a comment in a follow-up piece by Rebecca Coffman, "A Different Perspective on TOMS Shoes." She writes:

I believe that society’s energy and resources should be aimed towards unraveling actual charades, and not merely attacking companies based on confused and misdirected anti-capitalistic rage. TOMS shoes may not be a revolution. But they may enable the people whose feet they clothe to start one of their own.

But Hendricks' article does point to a charade: Westerners are made to feel good by their purchases, but they don't see everything that goes into creating the shoes. The fact is we don't know about the working conditions, or whether shoes are causing some sort of social problem in the communities where they are distributed. A particularly interesting quote from the TOMS "Giving Report":

Shoes are a status symbol [in Ethiopia]. Children dream of having their first pair.

If you listen closely you can hear the distant rumble of the free market (dare I invoke that dastardly term, "neoliberalism"?). Using one consumer culture to create another - I would say "only in America," but the process is necessarily international.

Besides, there are more pressing issues than footwear. Think of how much good can come from providing, say, access to water, or healthcare, or education.

But back to that comment about the original article being penned in a fit of "anti-capitalist rage." Dude got the shoes through his credit card.