0 Page 4-Saturday, March 17, 1979-The Michigan Daily Student search panel silence irresponsible it 'has become customary to expect curt secrecy from three of the four groups involved in the University's search for a permanent successor to Rbbben - Fleming. The Regents, masters of the secrecy game, have mhie a fine art of answering questions without saying anything. The faculty a'dvisory group, which passed a rbsolution that only its chairman wuld speak to the outside world, expresses itself through the short, blunt statemen- ts of Professor Harold Johnson. And it is'rid&t difficult to see where the alumni search committee stands when its chairman, Sam Krugliak, explains: 'We are completely the servants of the Regents and we will follow their in- st fictions to the letter." 1ut a new wrinkle in the secrecy i ue developed Wednesday night when t formerly vocal student advisory mmittee agreed at its latest meeting tl adopt a "no comment" stance when 4estioned about the search process. "IT'S NOT like I'm going to hang up tie phone when you call," said commit- t ' Co-chairperson Jeff Supowit when I d lled. But Supowit confirmed that because the process is moving into a nore and more sensitive area" gudent committee members have 4greed to discuss the details of that process less and less. To be sure, the search process is l oving into the critical stages. All -three advisory groups have reviewed the initial list of candidates and repor- 9'. ted back to the Regents with lists of their own. From these lists the Regents will narrow down the original pool of 200 names to a smaller, but as yet un- determined number. Eventually, a final group, which the Board hopes will be "less than eight persons" will be in- terviewed. All this will conceivably oc- cur in the next few weeks, because the Regents reportedly hope to pick a new president this spring. A Therefore, with the end of the process rapidly approaching, it is especially puzzling that the student committee should choose this moment to close its ranks, shut its mouth and submit to the Regents' attempt to orchestrate the search even more than they have up to now. COMMITTEE members insist they have not submitted to anyone, but one student on the panel revealed that the group was asked by the Regents to speak less about the process. They also insist they will go public with complain- ts they have about difficulties with the Regents if any arise in the near future. "If we do get to a point where it is useful to talk, we will," Supowit said. He added that if the group finds its ac- cess to important information is cur- tailed, he will consider it his "duty" to complain publicly. There is disagreement among com- mittee members on whether the policy is a permanent or temporary one. While Supowit called the speech curtailment a By Leonard Bernstein "general policy" decision which could continue indefinitely, Co-chairperson Bridget Scholl and committee member Carolyn Rosenberg were convinced the ban would be short-lived. Another committee member, Barbara Nutter, said the group did not discuss a 'time limit,tbut that all its decisions were sub- ject to change with the vagaries of the process. "IT'S NOT because we've all of a 1 "My own reason for agreeing is that I felt it was a legitimate part of the sear- ch process for committee members to maintain their 'no comment' stance in public," Nutter said. "Talking about the process in and of itself affects the process."~ "They (the Regents) cannot conduct open, flexible discussion when the con- tent of the discussions are in the press," Supowit said. "Therefore, with the end of the process rapidly approaching, it is especially puzzling that the student committee should choose this moment to close its ranks, shut its mouth and submit to the Regents' attempt to or- Assembly which voted to boycott the selection process because the student role in that process was not perceived as meaningful. Indeed, when MSA finally decided to join the search on December 12, Supowit was among those who wanted to continue the boycott. Once formed, the committee quickly made clear where it stood on the crucial issue of interviewing rights. The panel passed a resolution declaring it would "recommend. to MSA the recall of our committee" if "we perceive a lack of meaningful student participation in the selection process, specifically inadequate access to candidates, in- cluding interviewing... THE STUDENT panel also issued a hard-hitting, critical statement on the needs of the University from the student perspective, criticizing the University position on many issues. And up to now, all the group's mem- bers, while staunchly refusing to discuss names, have been open to discussion about all aspects of the sear- ch itself. Why then the change? One probability is that the group is becoming increasingly sensitive about its relationship with the Regents as the final days of the search approach. Committee members are careful to guard the trust and smooth working relationship they have established with the Board since the rift between studen- ts and Regents ended on December 12. The group has been in frequent contact with the Regents, and apparently has won and wants to maintain the Board's confidence., And Regents are sensitive to what they read in the paper. Unfortunately, the committee's at-: tempt to serve students by maintaining good grace with the Regents is, in another sense, a disservice to those students. Because of the Regents' careful choreography, the public will have no voice in the choice of the next president and, barring unforeseen leaks, will probably be unable to com- ment on the final eight candidates. In fact, the only link with the search process that currently exists is the in- formation on the proceedings that flows from the student committee and now: the committee members threaten to cut that off themselves. If, as committee members report,no new developments have occurred since the time the panel voted to curtail its comments, then no damage has been done. But if students are denied infor- mation about the process because their: appointed advisory group refuses to reveal it, then the panel will have violated its responsibility to thestuden- ts of this University. Hopefully, as some committee members say, the decision to remain silent will be a temporary one. Daily Night Editor Leonard Bern- stein reports on the search process for a new University President. chestrate the search even more than they have up to now." sudden been co-opted," Rosenberg said. She explained that the group had carefully examined its choices, and decided that for now, limited public discussion of the process would be ad- vantageous. But she and other commit- tee members would discuss the reasons for the decision only in the most general terms. "TRUST US," Rosenberg implored. She explained that the process was proceeding smoothly and that there is "really nothing to say now." What makes the decision all the more surprising is that the group had built up that trust by establishing a reputation of championing student interests. Supowit is part of the Michigan Student e'k. 1, d5.., V.4 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom Year of student won't influence Vol. LXXXIX, No. 132 News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Regents must respond -N THE LAST two days, students Acting University President Allan Yprotesting the University's invest- Smith, addressing the students who f tints in South Africa have made their occupied the Regents Room in the Ad- 'oint. 't'hey, and the entire University ministration Building, promised that qommunity, deserve a response. the Regents would at least discuss 3 The students who disrupted the Re- divestment when the SACFA report is gents' meeting yesterday and Thur- completed. sday have simply asked that the But there is no time limit on the regents discuss the divestiture issue. committee, much less any assurance 'Fhis.request could easily be fulfilled if that the issue of actual compliance e Regents, at their April meeting, with the Sullivan Principles will be ad- ay one of two words: "yes" or "no." dressed. ' The demand is a reasonable one due The students demanding an answer o the importance of the issue and the to to the divestment question have ac- eep concern it has raised on this cam- cepted their responsibility to end apar- pus. The Regents owe their constituen- theid. Disrupting the Regents' meeting y, and the students, a discussion of and prohibiting them from completing [his issue. their business is certainly a drastic That policy should be to divest. step, but in this case, the only option. Where is no question that apartheid is a Backed by the 3-1 student mandate reprehensible policy, contrary to the favoring divestment registered in last deals of human justice this University April's referendum, and 10,000 laims to foster. petition signatures, the protesters ac- As individuals, tihe Regents cepted their responsibility to represent egularly declare their condemnation the community. The Regents, unfor- f apartheid; and yet when asked to tunately, have not chosen to do so. nake a stand on divestment they have In fact, the Regents did all they could ontinually shirked their respon- to avoid this representation by seeking ibility. They have attempted to ap- the court order which eventually for- ease demands for divestment through ced the students to leave the building, series of delaying tactics. while the Board met privately. The ac- 4ALast March, the Regents approved a tion was legal but unethical. By ,solution stating that they would ask refusing to speak to the issues raised- $he corporations in which the Univer- by students the Regents violated the ity holds stock to affirm the Sullivan basic ideas of free exchange of infor- 'rinciples - a set of guidelines mation and ideas which should occur designed to assure racial equality - within a University. nd to sell their stock if the cor- Regent Sara Power went even fur- porations refused. At that time, the ther in limiting discussion by refusing tRegents promised to review the cor- to introduce a motion on the part of the orations' responses within one year, absent Regent James Waters (D- nd to take "reasonable steps" within Muskegon). On Thursday, Power had a "reasonable period of time" against promised Waters to present a motion orporations not complying with the calling for an action request on the princitples of similar policies, divestiture issue be placed on yester- The Regents claim to have met these day's Regents agenda in his behalf. abligations last October when they Power did not introduce the motion. received a report from Chief Financial Divestment has been a major issue Officer James Brinkerhoff, containing on this campus for at least two and one- the responses from the corporations half years. Students, faculty and involved. members of the University community Indeed, the corporations may have have protested, held rforums and signed the Sullivan Principles; infor- meetings, and written letters to secure gnation that was already known. But an answer from the Regents, and de- The Regents did not discuss the report spite these efforts the Regents have or ask the obvious question: Have the continued to avoid making a stand. signatories actually complied with the This week's protest was inevitable. Sullivan Principles? To be sure, Smith, the vice presiden- The discussion can be delayed no ts and the Regents will do a great deal The~~. discussion~r can be dlayd n a in v nlama The massive. protests which have thwarted the Regentswfrom conducting University business the last two days are the culmination of a year-long cam- paign by student activists op- posed to the school's policy of in- vesting in banks and corporations operating in South Africa's apar- theid regime. Throughout the last, twelve months, members of the Washtenaw County Coalition' Against Apartheid (WCCAA) and other students have held numerous rallies and appealed vigorously to the Regents to pull University stocks out, of South Africa. But even in the wake of their proudest moment, in which ap- proximately 200 of them ap- peared and kicked the Regents out of the , Administration Building, there doesn't seem to be any hope that the Board will alter its policy and vote for divestiture. The Regnts certainly seemed very uneasy and shaken by the students' actions but none of them'indicated they believed the divestiture issue should be addressed again in the near future. AND CONSIDERING the even- ts that have transpired in the last year, the Regents' inflexibility should come as no surprise to anyone. Since the divestiture con- troversy began brewing several years ago, the University's governing body has tried various tactics to either delay an even- tual vote on the matter or put it aside altogether. The Board's so- called compromise measures have been nothing more than a thinly-disguised effort to soften student uproar. In view of the events of the pasttwo days, that policy has not paid off. The Regents' first delaying tac- tic was instituted at last March's meeting when the Board passed a weak resolution to quash the students' protests. The resolution, formulated by Regent Thomas Roach (D-Detroit), stated that the University assumed responsibility for voting at shareholder meetings. The Regents also said they would immediately send letters to cor- porations asking them to affirm the anti-discriminatory Sullivan Principles and say they endorsed political, social and economic rights for all corporate em- ployees in South Africa. THAT MOVE fell far short of the resolution proposed by the Senate Advisory committee on Financial Affairs which asked the University to pull its money out of corporations which fail to By Michael Arkush An unknown student holds sign during Vice keynote speech at commencement last April. toward progressive policies, the University would not sell its shares in those corporations. During the same meeting, the Board also agreed they would review their policy on divestiture within a year. Students were not pleased by the Regents' resolution but there was nothing they could do except continue their protests. A strong nucleus of activists, which has been the center of the divestiture movement throughout, was able to place a referendum concerning divestiture on the ballot during elections for the Michigan Student Assembly. THE RESOLUTION stated: "Shall the students of the.Univer- sity of Michigan oppose any financial ties between the University and the, apartheid policies of South Africa and insist that the Regents follow the example of the University of Wisconsin and Michigan State by withdrawing investment of the University of Michigan from cor- porations conducting business in South Africa?" The advisory resolution passed by an overwhelming margin: 3,109 in favor to 1,172 against. At commencement in April; a small group of protestors in- terrupted Vice President Walter Mondale's keynote speech with chants like, "U-M-USA Out of South Africa" and. "Fight Im- perialism and National Op- pression." But the group was very small, perhaps about 30, and the majority of the 15,000 booed the nrntP~nrqand *nvnl aird d Regents, t sity had re the banks would be w swers. The agenda for Soon aft employed< shifting the tion of that Flint inste Board obvi move woul cry from U posed to Africa. Sti able to trav to Flint. A students w the Flint against th( the public During t bor, Herb that near porationsE Principles, banks and investmen fect on th Africa and cripple the racial terro SPECIF] tions said desegregal providee workers, a ber of bl positions. __ T - protests Regents constructively toend apartheid in t South Africa," said Roach. AS THE months passed by with the University's investments in South Africa still contributing to the country's racist system, the students waited and hoped. They hoped that" when the Regents reviewed the situation in March, they Would vote fordivestiture. Then at the February meeting came the shocking -revealation that the Board decided they wouldn't have to review its divestiture policy in March as: was originally believed. The ex- planation was that the review in October was sufficient to follow their verbal promise that they would discuss the divestiture policy within a year. Therefore-end of discussion. But the WCCAA and other ac- tivists decided that it would not be the end-of discussion. For the last two days, they have urged the Board to discuss the divestiture issue either during this month's meetings or to place President Mondales the issue on the April agenda. But the Regents have refused both hat since the Univer- suggestions. They have even ta ineth nie-refused to urge the ceived responses from SenatedAdvisory Committeeon and corporations, it Financial Affairs to have a report ise to review those an- on the University investments e item was put on the ready for the April meeting. Ac- theOctoberm ting University President Allan erwards, the Regents Smith's "concession" that he lytacticby would ask the Board to strongly another slytscy urge the committee to have that publi comments sec- report ready for April is another t month' me to in the long series of weak and in- ad of Ann Arbor.'The sufficient compromise delaying iously knew that such a tactics. Smith also said the Board d evade any more out- would not review the divestiture Jniversity students op- issue until it received the com- investments in South mittee's report, which may not be vudents would notrbe for several months. vet thed journey BY SAYING that the Board s it turned out,several would not vote on the divestiture vho attend classes at matter until, the committee campus spoke out finished its report, Smith e investmentsduring basically passed the buck to the comments session. committee even though the he meeting in Ann Ar- Regents are capable now of hetmeetinghinRAgnnAs-voting on the issue. yert told the Regents But as the past shows, these ly all of the 47 cor- compromise measures are endorsed the Sullivan nothing new for the Regents and that a majority of the more can be expected in the corporations said the future. What can't be expected, is had a beneficial ef- however, is that student e non-whites in South hwvr s ta tdn thaton-whitesiureSouuprisings, like the one during the Ithat divestiture could last two days, are not likely to e economy, provoking greatly influence Regental or. policy. .In fact, it's probably true that ALLYe wornpora now that the Regents have the ar wokin to aroused so much criticism, te their work facilities, they'll become defensive and equal pay for all more adamant over divestiture. nd increase the num- Unfortupptely, the disruptions acks in managerial may have done the students more harm than good. All this gloom should not stop