I was at a party on 13th Ave. recently when a friend of mine and his long-time girlfriend came up to me, obviously upset. When I asked what was wrong, they told me they were quite frustrated at not being able to find condoms anywhere late at night. I asked about United Dairy Farmers, but they said angrily that they were told UDF was a “family-values” store and didn’t sell them.

This seemed quite odd. When I went in UDF to check their story, the reply from the employees was, indeed, that the United Dairy Farmers chain did not sell condoms, though this time, they were somewhat unclear as to why. Since this seemed ridiculous, I called the toll-free customer service line to see what the reasoning was behind their condom boycott. They said it was a corporate marketing decision, based on the personal value system of the owners.

But that’s an especially odd decision in a weird system of values, if values really are what’s at stake. No condoms in a store filled with rows of different kinds of alcohol at state minimum prices, cartons of cigarettes, chewing tobacco and low-grade amphetamines for kids wanting to stay up through consecutive crazy weeks and weekends.

Not a single brand of condom is sold, nor any other prophylactic devices for the safe sex everyone preaches so intensely on college campuses around the country.

If you ask me, it seems to be a pretty bizarre decision.

It’s one choice definitely that’s doing more harm than good. UDF has three prime campus locations, close to late night hangouts and favorite hotspots: 12th Avenue and High Street, on High Street which is just north of Frambes Avenue, and Hudson Avenue and Indianola Avenue. All offer 24-hour service.

These easily-accessible, all-night convenience stores could be quite helpful to students who want to engage in sexual activity, but have the sense enough to do so safely. Instead, however, they choose not to; they have chosen, instead, to make useless judgments for a student body that does not want them or need them. A student population in the process of forming their own opinions of what is right and wrong and trying to account responsibly for the consequences of their actions along the way.

Instead of helping solve the problems that ail contemporary young adults, UDF seems to be supporting an obsolete, useless arrangement. If not selling condoms is just a marketing decision by the owners, it is a poor one – one obviously blind to the need of students for sexual protection (though not blind to their other alcoholic and cigarette needs).

If it is simply a value-based decision, they’re hypocritical to sell so many other questionable products but not condoms. And they’re ignorant in pretending to really believe that if condoms are made unavailable then students won’t have sex – that the availability of protection encourages sexual activity rather than smart safety.

Is it mandatory for UDF to abandon their bizarre stance on condom sale? Is UDF responsible for the increases in teen pregnancy rates and sexual disease transmission?

Of course not.

But the company – and the polite, hardworking employees who were helpful with my research – could be a useful tool in correcting old mistakes and keeping those rates low, keeping the campus cleaner and safer. They could be helping support (instead of undermine) the diligent work done by campus guardian angels – namely the Student Health Services and Planned Parenthood organizations – who have worked hard educating students on the consequences of unprotected sex and making sure they don’t have to suffer through them.

Unfortunately, the UDF chain stores are fighting a losing battle. But it’s a battle that they could be helping win, when they abandon their ignorant approach to contemporary society, and their alleged stance on what they claim to be acceptable products to sell.

John Ross is a junior in comparative studies and can be reached for comment at [email protected].