4 OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, March 9, 1983 The 'U, and change in The Michigan Daily South Africa By Patrick Mason The University's attitude toward the issue of divestment from South Africa must be publicly labelled for what it is - a cruel and callous farce bred in arrogance, ignorance, and greed. The administration would have us believe that because they have begun to con- sider divestment from four firms operating in South Africa that they are truly concerned about the destruction of apartheid through "peaceful" means. Hardly. It is only a publicity stunt, and a vulgar one at that. Obviously, Harold Shapiro's administration - not the University - has chosen to seize the propaganda initiative against its opponents. For those who claim that it is immoral to invest in companies that don't adhere to the Sullivan Principles, the administration would be able to claim that they too have see the light by divesting from Carnation, Dunn and Brad- street, IDraft, and Trane. FOR THOSE who claim that state law for- bids Shapiro's administration from continued investment in companies operating in South Africa, divestments from the companies men- tioned would add substance to the ad- ministration's claim that opposition to state law is not based on opposition to the underlying moralsentiment of the law but on genuine con- stitutional issues. After all, by divesting from those companies which don't uphold the Sullivan Principles, the administration is giving demonstrative evidence of a sincere desire "to adopt policies to end apartheid peacefully." Garbage. Let us suppose that all 40 of the companies the University has investments in are in full compliance with the Sullivan Principles. So what? These companies would still be suppor- ters of apartheid: Any corporation operating /; - / wages and status of employment of black workers to be commensurate with their white counterparts,, costs would increase and profits would fall. Not many companies operate on the principles of suicide finance. As J.P. Morgan once stated, "Any company that pays any of its workers more than the minimum it can get away with is cheating its stockholders." EVEN AT their best then, the Sullivan Prin- ciples are irrelevant. They do not address the central question of power, nor do they make realistic assumptions about the nature of business in a capitalist society. Obviously they were designed only for purposes of internal consumption, i.e. they are a public relations device for American corporations which have been pressured to justify their existence in South Africa. There are also several issues to be examined in the South African conflict. Is nonviolent change possible? The African National Congress, a liberation movement which has been in existence about 90 years, seems to have answered this question with an unambiguous no; and rightfully so. How often has it been that a powerful few has voluntarily relinquished power to allow it to be shared by all? Southern slaveholders didn't voluntarily free their slaves. It took a civil war. Powerful lan- downers didn't voluntarily open the political process to peons in Mexico. That development only began with the revolution of 1910. THE SOUTH African situation is even more difficult than any of the aforementioned struggles. The Mexican peons and the African Americans after the civil war, were recognized citizens of their respective countries. But non-citizens have no legal, moral, or political right to power in an alien country. The Sullivan Principals can do absolutely nothing to reverse this process of decitizenization. In light of these facts, I ask the following questions: " Can the same government which had mem- bers of its leadership interned during World War II for being Nazi sympathizers be tran- sformed non-violently? " Can the same government that gunned down 13-15 year old children in the student uprisings in Soweto during the mid '70s be tran- sformed nonviolently? . Can the same government which con- tinuously tries to destabilize all of its neighbors be transformed nonviolently? Given the realities of the South African, non- violent resistance can't be a viable means of achieving power by blacks. The process of socialization and acculturation of Afrikaaner society forbids sustained use of any non- violent option. There can be no plea bargaining with racists. As a full believer in Pan-Africanism - the idea that the African diaspora exists as one - I am greatly angered at the Shapiro ad- ministration's lack of sensitivity in handling the issue of divestment and failure to under- stand how deeply it affects many African- Americans. I believe (and I think that many other blacks would agree as well) that the administration's - and America's - attitude towards African affairs is only a reflection of its attitude towar- ds blacks in general. Thus, the entire issue of divestment can be viewed by blacks on this campus as a clear in- dicator of the degree to which Shapiro's ad-. ministration is realistically willing to deal with, any issue of concern to blacks. Mason is a graduate student in economics. s - within South Africa has to obey the laws of the land as laid down by the Afrikaaners. These! laws, indeed their entire culture, are based on the assumption that whites (i.e. Afrikaaners) have the God-given authority to rule forever without sharing power with anyone. THE REAL issue in South Africa is not whether blacks and whites can go to the same bathrooms, swim in the same pool, or stroll in the same parks. The real issue is the tran- sference of power. No company which aides blacks in gaining a greater share of power in South Africa will be long tolerated by the Afrikaaners. As Frederick Douglass once stated, "There is no progress without struggle.... Power never concedes anything without a demand. It never has, it never will." It is neither the general nature, desire, nore business of American businesses in South Africa to struggle for social progress; nor is it the business of business to become political ad- vocates of the oppressed. No demands, no struggle, no change. It is only the business of business to maximize profits - subject to the constraints of the environment in which they operate. Moreover if these constraints aren't. profits below what they deem normal, there is no incentive to advocate change. Additionally there are other realities to be considered. If businesses really upgraded the Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Stewart 7' . - Ic- Vol. XCIII, No. 123 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Reviewing budget reviewers AFTER EXAMINING the Budget Priorities Committee's recom- mendation to cut the School of Art's budget by 25 percent and reading the subcommittee report that the recom- mendation is based on, several major flaws in the committee's proceedings are readily apparent and very distur- bing. The subcommittee report and the final recommendation are full of un- substantiated claims and point to the need for change in the way the budget committee functions. The art school subcommittee report praised various portions of the school and its overall success within and out- side the University community. The report also criticized the overall strength of the faculty and the school's apparent lack of sufficient interaction with the rest of the University. But justification for these claims is vir- tually nonexistent. The documentation that would allow everyone to make an informed judgment on both the subcommittee and full committee recommendations is plainly msising. Why, for instance, did the full committee override the subcommittee's recommended 10 to 15 percent cut and call for a 25 percent cut when the subcommittee said such a cut was too steep?The full committee's two and a quarter page statement did not explain its decision. The committee claims only to have a better overall perspective on the University's full A&ASCONTINUED CONTROL OF WFATU7MW'NILMEA. CES budget outlook. Furthermore, no information on the proceedings is available other than the insufficient reports and comments from committee chairwoman Mary Ann Swain. By agreement, no other committee member is allowed to comment until the reports are made public. But even after the reports are released, committee members let Swain speak for them. Suspicion of the committee's work also is promoted because the entire proceedings go on behind closed doors. The one or two public hearings the Unviersity administration holds after the budget committee's recommen- dation has been turned in do not give the rest of the University much input into the reallocation and redirection process. No one except thercommittee members themselves know for sure what the real reasons are for the suggested cuts. No one will ever know whether these suggestions are workable and prudent unless the committee members open their files, their meetings, and their mouths to answer the questions, con- cerns, and criticisms many in the University have. The School of Art budget report and recommendations will be under examination only for a short while longer. But unless the Budget Priorities Committee changes its procedures, suspicion of the entire budget process will continue long after the reviews are over. 1\E DEMORATS Sh/ T DECDNTROL WLL EW 66EQ PCR\CES - 3 \ r hi CC ) ~i s / f " " Ito MIRRORl, MIRiBOR11 LETTERS TO THE DAILY: PIR GIM members clarify position To the Daily: Recent articles and editorials in The Michigan Daily have in- dicated that some misunderstan- ding exists regarding both PIRGIM's current "positive donation" system at CRISP and our proposal for a voluntary refusable and refundable fee system. We wish to clarify several aspects of the issue so that the University community can finally be correctly infor- med. When PIRGIM was founded on this campus in 1972 with petitions signed by 16,000 students (the largest such drive in the history of the University of Michigan), they were demonstrating support not only for the establishment of the organization. In the petition, students also instructed the University to act as a collecting agent for the monies they would raise from assessing themselves $1.50 per term to fund PIRGIM. The University, however, any kind. PIRGIM was a test case, and the Regents acknowledged that by establishing criteria, at the January, 1979, meeting, for the collection of special fees (p. 182 of the Regents' minutes), the basis for which was the PIRGIM petition drive. Presently, a student group that is recognized by MSA, is non-partisan and non- profit, and demonstrates an educational benefit to students may attempt to gain funding by presenting a petition signed by the majority of students. The origins of PIRGIM's position on the SVF is not an issue of large proportions. The real issue is : Do we, as students, still feel that a student-directed resource, such as PIRGIM, is worth voluntarily assessing our- selves a $2.00 fee each term? The present donation system drains a lot of PIRGIM time and energy, but we accept this con- dition if it serves to inform people conscientious minority is respon- sible for funding a resource ser- ving the majority. If our public schools were sup- ported only by those citizens whose children were enrolled, our educational system would suffer a continuous, unpredic- table cycle of collapse and rejuvenation. Most assuredly, this situation would not be caused by disinterest or antipathy for public education. There exists a psychological discrepancy between a "donation" and a "tax," the ef- fects of which are pronounced and detrimental in the case of PIRGIM's positive donation system. Because we are com- pelled to solicit these donations in the harried and tense atmosphere of CRISP, we cannot present our- selves or be received effectively enough to be fair to either the students or to PIRGIM. We have considered and recon- sidered many alternate methods PIRGIM are the first to admit that it is not perfect. We therefore recognize our responsibility to inform and educate students who will par-,1 ticipate in the funding procedure. Our provision of refunds is the symbol of that recognition, because it is designed especially to compensate for those students who might inadvertantly assess themselves the fee. We believe that this and all other conditions of the system make it as equitable as possible. We hope that ,tudents will benefit from tnis inf'rmation is they formulate opinions on the issue involved. The PIRGIM of- fice, at 4106 Michigan Union (662- 6597), is open to everyone who cares to discuss his or her con- cerns, ask questions, or join the organization. With any means of funding, PIRGIM will strive to continue functioning to the best of its' ability, but the system we