M&M explained the decision to eliminate “spokescandies”—cartoon images of the candy. The situation is delicate: Fox News anchors criticized the company’s “woke” M&Ms, and Tucker Carlson seemed particularly offended by Purple, which a Mars Wrigley spokesperson explained in September:

“We’re really excited about Purple because she’s designed to represent acceptance and inclusivity. We want her to be known for her earnest self-expression, keen self-awareness, authenticity, and competence.”

The company acknowledged but didn’t quite strike back against the controversy—or criticism of the previous push for inclusivity in January (see press release). This tweet downplays the original campaign (“We weren’t sure if anyone would even notice”) and jokes, “even a candy’s shoes can be polarizing.”

After backlash from the initial campaign, the spokeperson also tried to shake off the controversy: “We were thrilled to a large extent because it reminded us how iconic our brands are—that people care so deeply about M&M’s and the characters.”

I’m curious how students assess these comments. The company took a stand—and then seemed to back off. After the initial push for “fun,” the tweet reads formally in parts (“take an indefinite pause from the spokescandies”). Maybe students can think of a more creative way to retire the candies, one that demonstrates more accountability and courage. Could Maya Rudolph have done something funny?

Or maybe the company didn’t have to say or do anything differently, as a Forbes writer suggests? Or maybe a candy company should just make great, classic candy and not try to “bring people together”?