Here's links to two campus press articles on the protest.

The Georgetown Voice: "Another Brick in the Wal-Mart."
www.georgetownvoice.com/2007-09-06/news/another-brick-in-the-wal-mart

The Hoya: "Wal-Mart Executive Draws Protest."
thehoya.com/news/090707/news2.cfm

I'm sure all the poor people in DC who would like to get more for their little money and cheap prescriptions at Walmart will thank you rich, white, eltist snob Georgetown brats for making their lives harder. Let them eat cake, eh?

Gee, you're right! Georgetown students, if they really wanted to help the poor, ought to be studying union busting strategies and sweatshop management! Only the harshest capitalists are ethical. Hell, you know what would really decrease the price of clothing? If we could get someone to farm cotton for free... Oh wait... And you know what? All students who go to a good university are the same! Yep, they are all RICH, WHITE, SNOTTY BRATS! They all live on trust funds, have butlers, and only protest because it makes daddy mad! None of them are on scholarships, work during school, or actually care about other people! Your analysis is so insightful. Wait a minute...

The only reason Wal-Mart's cheap goods exist is because of sweatshop labor, union busting, and unfair compensation. Your argument is the typical divide-and-conquer strategies: pit the poor against each other so that they can never overthrow oppression and make sure they turn against people from a different class organizing to protest capitalism (you know, instead of becoming b-school grads). I'm not sure you have ground to criticize the Georgetown students who organized this protest. Many of them were involved in a long struggle to get living wages for Georgetown employees.. You know, the poor wal-mart shoppers you talk about. What have you done to concretely improve the lives of people in the district? Anything but making essentialist, baseless adhom arguments on a website? Probably not...

Your entire argument revolves around people trading their own prosperity for the prosperity of others. Not likely to happen. Communism has failed repeatedly.

You're arguments may or may not be correct, but I think there's a lot of grounds to criticize any student attending Georgetown, regardless of their economic background.

Right, because there is no such thing as internal dissidence. Students at Georgetown have never attempted to change its objectionable politics or alliances. We should allow Georgetown to become exclusively a center for training functionaries and socially fascist Catholics. I guess all of the true revolutionaries should attend institutions in the backwoods, if they even bother to attend a university at all.

Give me a break. You should feel free to criticize people who attend Georgetown because they want to get a great investment banking job or work for the state department; feel free to criticize people who study here and don't do anything about Georgetown's policies. You should probably lay off people who are on the margins of university life and struggle to change the offensive culture and policies of Georgetown. We're not all feel-good liberals or trustfund kids and we don't appreciate your attempt to homogenize and reduce us to that. Not only is it wrong, but it's a violent imposition of stereotypical representations that denies the university's complex and diverse student dissident population a voice.

Just like reforming the World Bank from the inside, right?

Here's links to two campus press articles on the protest.

The Georgetown Voice: "Another Brick in the Wal-Mart."
www.georgetownvoice.com/2007-09-06/news/another-brick-in-the-wal-mart

The Hoya: "Wal-Mart Executive Draws Protest."
thehoya.com/news/090707/news2.cfm

Alright, someone has an argument.

I'm on full scholarship for financial reasons, just to start, and I'm doing work study to get myself through school like a lot of other students do these days.

But, besides that, what part of our argument said that people shouldn't go get the cheapest medicine they can afford? I think we actually argued in favor of living wages for both the workers in the factories who produce the Wal-Mart merchandies and the Wal-Mart associates in their stores. A living wage includes the cost of basic health care. Our issue was with the idea that the largest and most powerful retailer in the world actually has the power to help a lot of people get the medicines, food and shelter that they're not getting right now. The problem is that we live in a world where the global poor (be they in Bangladesh or DC) are getting screwed by the global rich (be they in Bangladesh or DC).

If some of us choose not to shop there, that's our choice as consumers of your "free market."