People boycott major companies and brands almost every day, but what is the purpose behind these actions? Who are they trying to impact? Do people boycott because of social pressure, or do communities fully understand the true cause behind of it?
These are some of the questions discussed in the last ArtemisEngage of this semester, which took place Thursday, Dec. 4. Students gathered in Director of the Artemis Center Beth Gold and Service Learning Coordinator Meg Shirk’s classroom during the full hour of the FLX period.
The discussion began with students introducing themselves and their personal experiences regarding boycotting. Many students mentioned boycotting Starbucks, Amazon, Brandy Melville and Temu for their use of child labor in fast fashion or values that conflict with their own.
Then, mediators Olivia Hallinan Gan (’26) and Maya Hernandez (’27) posed a question to the group asking about students’ thoughts on how impactful and effective boycotts actually are.
Bonnie Hoytema (’28) said people do not feel inclined to boycott brands because they think one small impact against a larger company would not contribute to the bigger cause, making the action feel inconsequential. Not only that, but switching to alternative brands requires a change in lifestyle, Hoytema said.
“Through social media, we need to encourage more people to do it, just so that people feel like they’re having an impact,” Hoytema said during the discussion. “It’s really hard not to order stuff from Amazon, and it requires a lifestyle change. I think a lot of people just aren’t really inclined to do it if they have trouble seeing a direct impact from their actions.”
However, convenience is not the only factor. Some families don’t have the resources, time or financial flexibility to boycott major brands and switch to others, according to senior Darian Weiss. Sustainable brands like Reformation or Patagonia are typically more expensive than fast fashion options such as H&M or Zara, making boycotting those brands more difficult for certain customers.
Because this issue remains a debated topic, students in the ArtemisEngage began to discuss the unconscious bias that everyone carries when making decisions. Phoebe Miro (’28) said the Archer community may not realize the extent to which outside influence — like friends, family, teachers and environment — shapes their views, leading some to not fact-check or do research on the topic.
“You would be unconsciously biased towards one person or another, one belief or another, because it’s the way [you were] raised or other environmental factors,” Miro said during the discussion. “At our age, we’re so vulnerable to being influenced by anyone and anything, which makes it hard to have a firm stance on something.”
This was freshman Lucy Dinerstein’s first time attending an ArtemisEngage discussion. She contributed to the discussion by saying that while students trust their teachers, they can also sense subtle biases in the way certain topics are discussed through tone or emotion. Although Dinerstein identifies as a liberal, she said the extent of this bias can still be concerning in a Los Angeles private school.
“There was a video that came out, and it was [about] what your LA private school says about you. It said that [at Archer], ‘You just have to be woke past ninth-grade history,'” Dinerstein said in an interview after the discussion. “As I have been sitting in history class the past couple of weeks, I have realized that a lot of the things that we’re talking about are opinion-based. They are being worded in a way as if they are facts … Being a conservative person in my history class would be a difficult thing because a lot of the time [students in my class are] talking about fascism, and then we’re directly connecting that to our president and how our democracy is failing.”
Teachers in the history department may have a different angle on Dinerstein’s perspective; however they did not participate in this particular discussion.
Vivianne Arnold (’26) said it is possible to disagree with someone while still engaging in a respectful conversation. Instead of avoiding difficult topics or pretending differences don’t exist, Arnold said she believes people should openly express their confusion or disagreement without attacking the other person. She said approaching with an open mindset will help others reach deeper understandings and see where the other person is coming from.
“We’ve been talking a lot about liberal versus conservative, as in the two things someone can be. But I think all of us probably hold [a mix of] beliefs that would be categorized as liberal or democratic, or some that would be held as conservative or Republican,” Arnold said. “It’s important to remember that labels don’t define people, and just because people [that] you know are boycotting something doesn’t mean you necessarily have to.”
