PERSPECTIVE The Michigan Daily Wednesday, April 20, 1988 Page 5 Administration divided students PIRGIM defends itself By Eric Schnaufer Yesterday, leaders of the Black Student Union and Black Law Student Alliance, and possibly those two organizations themselves, formally broke with the United Coalition Against Racism. Yesterday, University Presidents Harold Shapiro's and Robben Fleming's plan to divide anti-racist student activists formally succeeded. Before proceeding, it is important to note that the following comments are not based on any personal knowledge of the division between BSU, BLSA and UCAR. Furthermore, I am neither a member of any of these groups, nor do my comments represent the views of any other group or persons. It is unlikely that the split between these anti-racist groups solely reflects dif- fering views on the importance of sexism and patriarchy. Although BLSA and BSU wrote that "all men are created equal," the differences those groups had with UCAR Are most probably deeper than the accep- tance of feminism in anti-racist activism (emphasis added). Nor is it likely that the split between these anti-racist groups was on the basis of race. Even though BLSA and BSU re- ferred to UCAR as a "predominantly white group," any group familiar with UCAR's leadership knows that this characterization of UCAR is manifestly false. If BLSA and BSU are trying to claim that they, not UCAR, represent Black students because UCAR is not BUCAR, BLSA and BSU have obviously not succeeded. If BLSA and BSU are announcing that they would rather work with white university administrators than white students, then there has been a serious breakdown in race relations among students. It is also unlikely that the split is over the $35,000 President Shapiro promised BSU a year ago. BLSA and BSU accused UCAR members of wanting to gain con- trol of the $35,000. But since $35,000 is a drop in the bucket and since alternative funding is readily available, "money envy" is certainly not the main division between anti-racists groups. The main division between anti-racists groups is political. The groups differ in outlook, orientation, tactics and philoso- phy. Thirty-five thousand dollars did not make BSU and BLSA suddenly see the need for lauding University administration efforts to increase Black student enroll- ment or increased University control over students through a nonacademic code. BSU and, especially, BLSA may have a pre-professional orientation, maybe even a Black capitalist perspective. Not all or maybe even the majority of BSU and BLSA members are proto-Buppies, but the conservative influence of career orienta- tions are apparent in BSU and BLSA policies. It is nonetheless wholly under- standable that some Black students would want to have the same economic opportu- nities as white students. In fact, equal economic opportunity is necessary for racial equality. But equal economic oppor- tunity may not be sufficient for there to be racial equality. Maybe even the ideology of equal economic opportunity impedes racial equality as well as economic and gender equality. Not all anti-racist activists believe that the main racial problem in the United States is the paucity of Black men in leadership roles in political and economic hierarchies. An equal opportunity to dom- inate and exploit may not be the proper goal of anti-racist student activists. If BLSA and BSU can be seen as repre- senting a conservative tendency in anti- racist student activism, UCAR can be seen as representing a liberal tendency. Shapiro and Fleming saw and exploited the differ- ence in these tendencies. Shapiro and Fleming appointed Black administrators to positions in the University administration where those Black administrators would be forced to defend the University against charges of institutional racism. To a certain extent, this strategic de- ployment of Blacks in the administration has muted conservative Black student criticism of the University's institutional racism. Some Black students and student organizations have now even assumed the responsibility for defending the University against attacks by liberal Black students for the University's institutional racism . For example, BLSA and BSU criticized UCAR yesterday for "denigrating" the Of- fice of Minority Affairs. Ideally, all anti-racist student activists would be united against the University's institutional racism as well as attitudinal racism in the University. Ideally, all anti- racist student activists would be united against sexism and other forms of invidi- ous domination. But, in this University and society, those who command the economy and polity have access to exten- sive monetary and organizational resources and "legitimate" authority. Using their control of resources and authority, leaders of the economy and polity are able to di- vide and conquer if not search and destroy critics of existing racial relations. Fleming and Shapiro have divided anti- racist student activists. There is some hope, though, in that Fleming and Shapiro have been unable to vanquish anti-racist student activism. The future may yet hold the possibility of a progres- sive, racially integrated student-worker movement against attitudinal and institu- tional racism at the University of Michi- gan. Eric Schnaufer is a law student at the University of Michigan. Reminder To Our Readers By Judy Hyslop and Wendy Seiden' Beginning last October, several oppo- nents of PIRGIM began spreading misin- formation about PIRGIM around campus. We have already lost the campus election because of it, with students narrowly vot- ing (1849-1731) to discontinue the 75 cent refundable PIRGIM fee. PIRGIM wants to set the record straight: (1) The Daily reported in an editorial that PIRGIM "unscrupulously" sent student fees to Boston, where they were used to fund other PIRGs around the country. Is this true?1 No. PIRGIM has never sent student fees to Boston or anywhere else in the country, nor will it. In fact, PIRGIM has received no student fees whatsoever over the past 2 years. All the fees that students have paid are still with MSA in a U-M account. This charge is an example of an outright lie spread by PIRGIM opponents in the election campaign. Opponents knew that PIRGIM had no student fees - the oppo- nents had helped write the MSA-PIRGIM contract that prohibited MSA from turning over any student fees to PIRGIM until all the refunds were paid. Refunds were sent at the beginning of April. (2) Did PIRGIM mislead students in last year's elections by claiming to be in debt Hyslop and Seiden are members of ' PIRGIM's Board of Directorsj when in fact it had a large surplus? No. In 1986, four months before the first vote on the PIRGIM fee (the vote where students overwhelmingly approved the fee), PIRGIM turned over to MSA 200 pages of documents about the organization, including budgets, audits, and official cor- porate documents. PIRGIM gave this material to the Michigan Daily and dis- cussed it with reporters from the Ann Arbor News. For three months (still before the election), MSA debated the PIRGIM issue in weekly meetings, referring to these doc- uments. What did these documents show ? That PIRGIM's statewide citizen organization had a surplus; that we never claimed to be in debt; and that we expected our surplus to grow as our statewide programs became more successful (as they have). Those doc- uments also showed that the surplus came entirely from citizen contributors who sup- ported PIRGIM in its statewide efforts to clean up toxic waste. Citizens across the state did not contribute money to pay for campus consumer guides; a separate cam- pus fee is needed to fund those projects. Citizens contributed to clean up the envi- ronment, and PIRGIM's responsibility is to use their funds for that purpose. The documents we provided MSA and the press were very clear on this subject, as were the discussions before MSA and other student groups -- all before last year's vote approv- ing PIRGIM funding. (3) Will PIRGIM survive after this de- feat? Of course. PIRGIM's statewide program is healthy and very active. This year we had a record-setting statewide Telephone Out- reach Project, and we will run four canvass offices around the state this summer-- our largest effort ever. The impact of the vote is confined to PIRGIM's U-M projects. The student Board of Directors will decide whether to shut down PIRGIM's U-M pro- jects because of lack of funds for those projects. (4) Does this year's election loss mean that student opinion has shifted, and that there is a groundswell against PIRGIM and its funding? We don't think so. PIRGIM funding has a long history of student support at U- M: 16,000 signatures in 1972; 16,800 in 1986, and a landslide victory (over two to one) last year. This year's election was very close (1849 to 1731), and the turnout was the lowest in a decade. The number of anti-PIRGIM votes this year (1849) was less than the number in last year's PIR- GIM victory (over 1900 "no" votes); the difference is that last year, 3100 people voted in favor of the PIRGIM fee. Regardless of the size of the margin and the turnout of the voters, the result of the election is that students have voted to ter- minate the PIRGIM fee. We respect stu- dent democracy, and we respect that deci- sion. We also believe that the vote and the decision would have been very different if we had countered the misinformation about PIRGIM before the election. LETTERS: BSU, BLSA not split with To the Daily: The undersigned Black stu- dents and members of the BSU, BLSA and UCAR wish to dis- associate ourselves from the statement by Barron Wallace and Jeff Williams printed in the Daily yesterday. The letter was replete with lies and baseless accusations about UCAR and UCAR's relationship with BSU and BLSA. The opinions expressed in that statement were those of Wallace and Williams and not the member- ship of the BSU or BLSA. The membership of neither group authorized the publication of this letter or agreed with its content. While we are tempted to specify and counter the inaccu- racies, we do not feel the Daily is the proper forum to air the differences and disagreements that exist within the Black community on campus. W e will pursue this dialogue and our specific criticisms of the current BSU officials in a more constructive context, where such criticisms could con- tribute to strengthening the or- ganization and our community. Finally, UCAR is a multi- racial organization, led by peo- ple of color and has devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy' to exposing and fight- ing racism on this campus, opening the University up to Black youth of Detroit and other excluded communities, and encouraging the entire community to commit itself to this struggle. We intend to continue to counter and fight the main enemy confronting our community and not each other. We encourage all Black students to attend BSU UCAR Wednesday night at 7:00pm to further this dialogue. -Bob Meadows, BSU Vicky Baecher, BSU Carl Anderson, BLSA TracyerMatthews, BSU/UCAR Kimberly Smith, BSU/UCAR Dan Holliman, BSU/UCAR Rosaland Reeves, NAACP Barbara Ransby, BSU/UCAR Lillian Waller, BSU/UCAR Tracey Grasty, BSU Lannis Hall, BSU/UCAR, Cathy Cohen, POWOR/BSU Roderick Linzie Michael Wilson, BSU/UCAR Connie Glaze, Sigma Sweethearts. MANUFACTURERS %A HANOVER TODAY is the last day of publication for The Michigan Daily. Have a great summer! ...Just a Little Out of the Way from High Prices