4 OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, January 12, 1983 The Michigan Daily -4 Arroyo: Insecurity, alienation, hope On Christmas Eve, 1981, the Economics Building burned to the ground. On January 7, 1983, Arthur Arroyo, former University em- ployee, was sentenced to five to ten years for starting the blaze. ' Although friends claimed that Arroyo set the fire because of a grudge against the University, he says his crime was part of his com- plicated emotional problems. Arroyo spoke with former Daily staffer Lou Fintor and staff writer Scott Kashkin at Washtenaw Coun- ty jail this week about his state of mind prior to the fire and his reflec- tions on his trial. M! n IR nRti Dialogu Daily: What did you think about your job at the University? Arroyo: In my relationships with other people.. .I was very insecure. I had a lot of feelings of inferiority, more like alienation. I felt like I was different from everybody else. Daily: You have had more than forty jobs in the past ten years. Why did you change jobs so often? Arroyo: I think it has to do with my difficulties in dealing with criticism that happens at work and in just having real trouble dealing with people who don't like me or are cold to me. Also, I think I was probably in the wrong field. There was too much ten- sion for me in the secretarial field. Maybe some males are able to do that but I certainly wasn't; especially with my insecure feelings. I guess it's just, similar to a woman becoming a doctor or a lawyer. Daily: Did you ever feel hostile to the University community? Arroyo: I was feeling very alienated shortly before the crime. From Thanksgiving to Christmas of that period, it's hard to recollect all the things I did daily. I was feeling very alienated from everyone and I couldn't single out Ann Arbor. It was more or less everything, the whole world. I felt very rejected from my family too. But it was a delusion, it was a lot of self- pity. I wasn't really dealing with reality. Daily: So you didn't have any animosity toward the University it- self? Arroyo: I don't think so in particular. Daily: You weren't angry at the ec- nomics professors because they sup- ported Reagan's economic policies? Arroyo: I remember one economics professor, a woman, I won't mention her name because she might not want me to, that I was very friendly with and worked with once. I saw her on the street a lot and she'd smile. I liked her a lot The thing about Reaganomics that came up was something after it hap- pened-a rationalization of mine. Daily: If it wasn't animosity against the economics department, what was it that provoked you to enter the building? Arroyo: You know, to this day it's hard for me to pinpoint. I always wan- ted to be part of something. . . and I perhaps saw that (the Economics Building) as the symbol of what I wan- ted to be in and couldn't get into. I remember admiring the building. Compared to the other ones in the same area, it was prettier, you know. I may have had an attraction for it. But it's really not clear in my mind. I didn't feel I had control over my act. Daily : Had you wanted to do damage to the building at any other time? Arroyo: I didn't have any intention to do damage to the building. What I did was light it, set a . . . I came in and didn't know what I was going to do, and saw the papers there and it just made me think of burning them up. So I... took a match out and burned the piles of paper. Daily: How do you feel about the police accusation that you took gasoline into the building? 'Arroyo: I feel very scandalized by that. It was hard for me to take that someone could get up there in court and say something like that, because when I made my confession to the detective he said he believed me. I told him how I did it and he said, "That's not telling me everything." And he said, "Did you use something flammable?" and I said no. I was very adamant about that. He said they found something flammable down there. He said he believed me and I believed him. You'd think since he's a detective he would know when someone's lying or not. Daily: How did you feel afterwards? Arroyo: The next morning I heard about it on the radio. I just didn't imagine that setting a match to papers in the basement could have started a big thing. Daily: So you didn't actually see the flames spreading through the building after you set the papers on fire? Arroyo: I left immediately. I went to the Diag to go downtown. Then I came back toward my apartment and I looked back and I could see some flames in the hallway. I just kept on walking. There were people around and I guess I just figured that someone would put it out. I was very drunk, too, and I had had a lot of tequila that day. I may not have been thinking what might have happened. Daily: You didn't think the building might be in danger and call the fire department? Arroyo: I wasn't thinking of that. Daily: Why did you go to San Diego after the fire and what happened to you while you were there? Arroyo: Well, when I went to San Diego I was planning to start over and I was blaming it (the fire) on my drinking. I thought that maybe I would stop drinking and see if I could change myself. So I had the intentions of reforming my life. I got a job at San Diego State College and that was really the wrong thing for me. It was the same kind of office environment that I was unsuccessful at before. Daily: How did you feel when a friend you confessed to told the story to the police? Arroyo: Mostly, I felt that they pressured him just like I felt they pressured me. Daily: How did they pressure you? Arroyo: They were playing on my religious background. I had studied for a year to be a priest. And they started telling me what it's like to confess to a priest . . . I remember signing my first name Arthur. There was a "t" in the middle and then I signed it with a very clear Catholic cross, a way that I don't usually sign my name. It in- dicated what I was thinking about. Daily: How do you feel about Judge Conlin, the verdict, and your sentence? Arroyo: I think it may have been dif- ficult for him to see the truth with such a barrage of experts from the prosecution trying to establish something that wasn't true. Con- sidering the verdict, I think Judge Conlin was fair. Daily: How do you feel about going to Jackson State Prison for your quaran- tine and evaluation before being sent to Daily Photo by DAN DEVRIES Arroyo: "I just didn't imagine that setting a match to papers in the basement could have started a big thing." a psychiatric facility? Arroyo: I'm afraid because of things I'-e heard. Particularly how they might treat homosexuals there. Although I've also heard that it's not necessarily worse for homosexuals; I don't know what to expect. Daily: Do you have any intention to appeal the verdict? Arroyo: I intend to appeal the convic- tion on the basis that I had no intention of burning the building and I didn't use anything flammable. As crazy as I've ever gotten in my life, I just don't think I would do anything that crininal. I just don't think I have it in me. ,Daily: How have you changed since your imprisonment? Arroyo: I think overall it's probably 4 better than I expected jail to be. Emotionally, as opposed to a year ago, I feel I have a somewhat better grasp of reality and that I'm much improved, in that I recognize that my friends and relatives do care for me and that I still have hope. You know, I have fear right now, but I have hope also. Dialogue is a weekly feature of the Opinion Page. Edie m dtgan t Man Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCIII, No. 83 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 4 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Divest now F OR YEARS, THE University has clung tenaciously to its invest- ments in South Africa. In spite of massive student protests, in spite of pleas from the faculty, from gover- nment leaders, and from the populace itself, the University has steadfastly refused to let go of its holdings in com- panies which do business in the openly racist state. Now, however, the University is going to have to decide just how far it is willing to carry its intransigence: In the next several months the Regents will have to decide whether they are willing to challenge state low over their precious South African invest- ments. Late last year, the legislature passed and then-governor William Milliken signed a law that requires the Univer- sity to sell off its investments in businesses which do business in South Africa. The law, sponsored by Rep. Perry Bullard (D-Ann Arbor), would make the University sell off about one- fifth of its investment portfolio by April 1984. But, true to form, the Unviersity argued against the bill while it was in the legislature, and several University officials have said that the University might now challenge the law. These officials, including University General Counsel Roderick Daane, claim that the new law is an unconstitutional in- fringement on the powers of the Regents to control the University's financial affairs. Other University of- ficials charged the state with hypocrisy in not requiring the state pension fund to divest itself of holdings in companies that do business in South Africa. As a result, the Unviersity might file a suit questioning the constitutionality of the new law, or it might wait until the state takes action after the 1984 deadline. But the University's arguments against the law are flimsy at best, and serve only to disguise the real issue. The new law is indeed an interference in the affairs of the Regents, but it is warranted and justifiable interference under the power of the state to enforce civil rights legislation. It is "interference" in order to force the Regents to take an action which is supported by most students, many faculty members, and a majority in each ouse in the state legislature. Regental opposition to* the new law only shows the University's increasing isolation on the issue. . The Regents have shown in the past that they are not easily intimidated on the question of divestment. In the process, they have displayed an im- plicit but callous disregard for the fate of civil rights programs here and abroad. Changing that record won't be easy, but immediate compliance with the new state law sure would be a start. 4 4 Miskitos. By Jack Epstein and J. H. Evans PUERTO LEMPIRA, HONDURAS-To much of the outside world, Nicaragua's Atlantic Coast Miskito Indians are seen as backward Central American natives, minor players in the opposition led by ex-Somoza National Guardsmen; disaffected San- dinistas, and Managua businessmen. In fact, a four-month investigation of their activities along the Honduran-Nicaraguan border reveals the Miskitos to be the most ex- plosive military threat facing the young San- dinista revolutionary government today. THE MISKITOS' HIGHLY motivated troops have created more havoc for the Nicaraguan army than the ex-Somoza guar- dsmen who operate on the Pacific side. Unlike the Somocista soldiers, who terrorize with hit- and-run raids, the Miskitos work on familiar terrain with the active support of the populace. An insurrection almost occurred a year ago after 80 young Miskito fighters calling them- 1Th e fig/I Coco to refugee camps in Honduras. THERE THE Miskitos regrouped, recruited combatants from the camps, trained under former National Guardsmen and received sophisticated weapons from the Honduran military. Today there are an estimated 2,000 trained and equipped Indian troops, with many more serving in reserve and logistic capacities. In interviews with Miskito leaders in Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Washington, D.C., and Miami, these correspondents found an organized and disciplined political machine making calculated decisions. Whether talking in a refugee hovel in Honduras or a posh office in Washington, D.C., the men and women leaders we interviewed were often university- educated, politically astute, and confident. The Miskitos maintain training and supply camps both in Honduras and Nicaragua, and ever recruit and meet clandestinely in Puerto Cabezas, the Sandinista military headquarters on the Atlantic Coast. THE SANDINISTAS,however, claim only that they are confronting a well-disciplined 11 0goes on tury. Throughout the reign of the Somoza dynasty they were treated with benign neglect, left to-run their own affairs. By the 4 time of the Sandinista takeover, they already were sophisticated political decision-makers, and their ambitions took the young revolutionary government to task. FIRST THEY DEMANDED an Indian rights organization, called Misurasata, which quickly incensed the Sandinistas by claiming title to 38 percent of the national territory. They also asked for five seats on the Council of State (they had one) and representation on the ruling junta. The Sandinistas reacted by jailing the en- 4 tire leadership, charging them with fostering counterrevolutionary and separatist plans. AS A RESULT of their actions, the San- dinistas caused fear and mistrust among a people who already were traditionally wary of all Spanish speakers from the Western por- tion of the country. Many observers now feel that the situation has deteriorated to the point where a general coastal uprising is a very real possibility. The Miskitos' demands for regional ...................................