4 Page 4 OPINION Friday, January 20, 1984 The Michigan Daily a'U, should invest in social respon4 .. ! ! ! 1_ 4 By Wilbert McKeachie 'Should the University vote its stock on stockholder social responsibility reolutions? The issue of University policy with respect to voting its shares on' stockholder propositions came to the fore when I was chairman of the Senate Akdvisory Committee on University Af- fairs. We developed the policy that When a question was raised about a corporation's social responsibility, the University would invite representatives of the corporation and of the petitioners to come to the University to present their positions at a public forum. AT THAT TIME one of the iajor issues was similar to the current con- cern about corporations doing business in South Africa. The issue was whether or not American corporations were a force preventing the people of Angola from having a government of their own choosing. The National Council of Churches supported a shareholder resolution asking one of toe major oil companies to provide information on its activities in Angola. The officers of the corporation opposed the resolution. Since the University held stock in the company, we invited the corporation and the National Council of Churches to send representatives to the University to discuss the issue, and they did so. TJe ensuing forum produced more heat than reasoned debate. Nevertheless, an experience following the forum convin- ced me that it had been worthwhile. I was to speak at Slippery Rock State College on the evening following the forum. Since it was impossible for me to be at the forum and make a commer- cial flight in time for my speech, the executive vice-president of the oil com- pany offered to give me a ride in the company plane to Pittsburgh. This gave me a chance to find out that he had been influenced by the debate. My impressions of his reactions were reinforced by a comment by the com- pany's vice-president of public relations who accompanied me to the car from Slippery Rock. He said, "The forums at Michigan, Harvard, and other universities have been a great educational experience for our president and vice-president. They had never before had to think about the social impact of our operations. The resolution will be voted down, but they'll be much more sensitive to ethical issues in the future." THIS, I believe, is the major argument for taking shareholder resolutions seriously. They sensitize corporation executives to social con- cerns which would otherwise be sub- merged in the real and important 'problems of maintaining a profitable business. As a shareholder, the University can simply fail to vote on such resolutions. But such a position represents a moral decision that shareholders should not attempt to persuade corporation executives to be concerned about ethical implications of corporation ac- tivities. To me it seems probable that fulfilling our share of responsibility would be an abrogation of our ethical duty. Can the University exercise its responsibility without excessive costs in time and acrimony? I believe so. Certainly there would be such costs. But the number of issues is limited. For the past few years .I have been responsible for voting shareholder resolutions for the American Psychological Foundation, a very small portfolio in comparison with that of the University, but large enough to give me a sense of the task. In the United States last year, shareholders of only 73 cor- porations proposed resolutions opposed by management. It is unlikely that the University holds stock in all 73 so the task is, thereby reduced. It will be reduced even more as the University completes divestment of stocks of com- panies doing business in South Africa since thirty-two of the resolutions in- volved South Africa. Further reducing the magnitude of the task is the new set of rules limiting stockholder proposals placed in effect by the Securities and Exchange Commission Jan. 1. Thus a small committee should, without great effort, be able to monitor the proposals and recommend appropriate positions for the University. McKeachie is a professor of psychology and a former chairman of the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs, the faculty's top governing committee. 4 It took a lot of prodding and protesting to get the University to divest from its holdings in companies which operate in apartheid South Africa. The University could similarly prod other companies on other social issues by investigating stockholder resolutions. many of the serious ethical issues in society involve evil consequences of in- stitutional or corporate policies-policies which result from the dispersal of decision making authority among many individuals who faithfully carry out their roles in the corporation with good personal ethics but little sen- se of responsibility for (or control over) the policies of the institution in which they work. Harvard University has the following policy: "It is Harvard's position that along with 'the rights of ownership comes the responsibility to examine social/ethical issues raised in shareholder resolutions and to vote shares conscientiously." For the University simply to reap the profits of the corporations in which we have a share of ownership without I. _ _ -.4 Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Laban Vol. XCIV-No. 91 420 Maynard St. 4 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Doily's Editorial Board Fighting athletic supporters PELCDGM IZIl6 KoG US5*QVITE AMEAS$ADW.. GoJTR4VERS A-.. 1,0414RAAWP yo~rO Sfi RC pa(TAE7 J C7 C Y OU'D THINK our state legislators would be busy with important business like digesting Governor Blan- c.hard's state of the state address or working to put a few of their con- sitituents back to work. But there's one state senator who is fighting the "evil" Don Canham and his cohorts in the pay television business. Senator John Kelly (D-Detroit) says that the people in his district, Grosse Pointe and Harper Woods, have called him up complaining about having to pay to see Michigan basketball on television. The University's athletic department sold the University's foot- ball and basketball rights this month to Sports View Co., a pay-per-view cable television company. So Kelly, to save Michigan fans from their misery, has nobly decided to push a bill which would prevent state universities from selling television rights for sporting events to cable television companies. No doubt Kelly is fighting for a very 6herished right, especially for Univer- ity students and alumni who live in his district. And all taxpayers may marvel at, the speed at which he whipped up the measure to save true blue fans. But his proposal may have slipped off his lips just a bit too quickly. For his method of dealing with state colleges and universities which manage to make money off cable deals is similar to launching a blind punch in the wrong direction. The legislation would reduce aid to state universities by the amount they gained in any cable deal. Apparently no one told Kelly that the academic and sports budgets are separate, at least at this university. Also, he must not be aware that taking money away from the University's already meager state appropriations won't be a blow to Athletic Director Don Canham, but rather to the quality of the academic programs at the University. There must be some other legislative game Kelly could play - one that means more to the people in his district than watching Bill Freider chew towels on the tube for free. ST Au ~S[RA J61I06 1APPED L..AS1 WEE K" I WAS AWkk£ME D ON~E NIGHT BY LIGH T.. NOKE BEFORE ME I SAWA FI&IRE DRkED IN I OW If'JEOBE5,. V41TH W105 A A HALO' Is TP~AT YOU (,OTTA GET wIY YoQA -"NOSE BISWOP3.-b CAD T14? LAY VATICAN. C 1 MS ED IT MIAT IT kWI 11T SAID JUST TWO WORDS... '7- 00 r ,. i 1 ! . { November. A1984 UNDAY MONDAY' TUEh . E5 ~ t4\E6W -rH11UQVtY FitDOY WORMY S 4 5 , 6 7. S 9 10 ~kIELEC11oNDA '11 ]3 X1 1S16 17 18 19 2 122Z 4 The 1984 presidential contest is rapidly narrowing down to a two- man battle,,even before the first primary. It is clear that, barring vicissitudes, Walter Mondale will lead the Democrats against Ronald Reagan, who presumably, will announce his candidacy Jan. 29. Given these two contenders, what can we expect the election to revolve around? The issues certainly are plentiful and divisive: the economy, military spending, social programs, women's rights, race, foreign policy, war and peace, to name a few. But no one should be sur- prised if this election turns out to revolve around one single issue that overshadows all the others: the character of the man who oc- cupies the Oval Office. Ronald Reagan himself may well be the most important issue of the cam- paign. THERE ARE two reasons why this may be so. First, the major candidates so far appear un- willing to lock horns over any of the principal domestic or foreign issues. And secondly, Ronald Reagan has come to represent for many people a political gestalt that is more than the sum of its parts. The character of the man incorporates and transcends his politics. Three overlapping groups of voters are looking forward to the elections: blacks, women,and the left. All three bear strong Reagan himself is N ovember'~s crucial issue. By Franz Schurmann foreign policies greatly raising the risk of wars, and of a final nuclear holocaust. And for those on the left, Reagan represents an out-and- out right-wing philosophy that makes no bones about wanting to turn the country away from all the policies and values the left identified with since the era of Franklin Roosevelt. Mondale -knows full well that these are the spearheads of his voter troops. But he also knows that the general mood of the country is moderate, once again mildly patriotic, and aware that economic recovery has occurred without liberal midwifery. SO WHILE he is prudent on BLOOM COUNTY foreign policy and economic issues, he has made the thrust of his effort so far the building of the broadest and strongest anti- Reagan coalition possible. While blacks, women and the left dislike Reagan with an almost personal ire, there are plenty of people in the main- stream who worry about Ronald Reagan the man, especially with regards to his handling of war and peace issues. Thus, a presidential campaign on the simple issue of Reagan, pro or con, rather than the complexities of foreign policy or the divisiveness of socio-economic issues, may well be shaping up. Staggering sums of money and people hours are going to be ex- pended on the 1984 election. Is it credible that the entire thing will simply be about what kind of man people want in the White House? It is, credible if one considers that the quality of man in the Oval Office seems to matter pn only one single issue: war. To go to war or not is a decision that, in the end, rests with the president alone. For just about every othei issue, there is time to consult, argue, seek consensus. On war alone, split-second decisions have to be made. It would seem to matter that a president is or-is not an ideologue, a hothead, cool in a crisis, compassionate, vengeful. If presidential elections now are increasingly about war and peace issues, then one might think other social issues do not matter any more. That can har- dly be the case. Much more likely is the fact that people have simply come to think that, whoever is in power, there is not much that can be done on domestic and social matters from the command posts in the Oval. Office. Schurmann is a professor of history and, sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. He wrote this article for the Pacific News Service. by Berke Breathed 4 4 4 I "I V I 1 r AU HOQf*, FRANKLY I WI6H q ivc cur r." or^r:rrna c / ' I