4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, February 14, 2005
OPINION
clhe r ttn jDtfdv
JASON Z. PESICK
Editor in Chief
SUHAEL MOMIN
SAM SINGER
Editorial Page Editors
ALISON GO
Managing Editor
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890
420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
NOTABLE
QUOTABLE
44'This isn't penny
ante. Millions, per-
haps billions of
dollars have been
wasted and pilfered."
-Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), commenting
on the suspected misuse offunds in Iraq, as
reported yesterday by The Associated Press.
SAM BUTLER "IH;E SOAB
r o
}p
Supporting scrutiny
ELLIOT MALLEN IR ATIONAL Ext..'BRANCE;
his Thursday, the
School of Natu-
ral Resources
and Environment and the
Stephen M. Ross School
of Business will form an
unholy alliance in sponsor-
ing a panel discussion enti-
tled "Surviving Scrutiny:
Corporations in the Age
of Global Business," featuring representatives
from Nike, Timberland, Starbucks and Coca-
Cola - all corporations facing criticism for
unsavory business practices both in the United
States and abroad. These representatives will do
their damnedest to paint their corporations as
the helpless prey of manipulative, bloodthirsty
accusers seeking personal gain. In this context,
scrutiny has a negative connotation - those
being scrutinized are victims and scrutiny is
inherently undesirable.
The panel is sponsored in part by Starbucks,
which is also a panel participant, and the Cor-
porate Environmental Management Program,
whose mission is to train future leaders to "con-
tinually draw upon their interdisciplinary training
to inspire, develop and implement innovative and
practicable methods for cultivating a sustainable
future." This is a noble enough venture whose
feasibility is brought into question given that it is
sponsored by such renowned stewards of the land
as Ford, Pfizer and Dow Chemical (who gave
over $2.5 million, elevating it to "Gold-level"
status). The panel will be moderated by CEMP
co-director Andy Hoffman, who currently sits
on the Purchasing Dispute Review Board. This
board was created by University President Mary
Sue Coleman to ensure that companies the Uni-
versity does business with follow a series of labor
and environmental standards laid out in the Ven-
dor Code of Conduct. Coca-Cola is currently the
subject of intense scrutiny by this board, which
is considering recommending that the University
not renew its contract with the purveyor of every-
thing from the seemingly benign Dasani bottled
water to Odwalla juices. Coke's abuses range
from complicity in the murder of nine Colombian
union leaders to depleting sources of groundwa-
ter in India, and selling thirsty villagers a bever-
age with a level of toxins so high it has become a
popular pesticide. While Coca-Cola should cer-
tainly be allowed to have its say, it strikes me as
questionable that a member of a board whose job
it is to scrutinize corporations will be moderat-
ing a panel featuring a Coca-Cola representative
discussing the company's methods of overcom-
ing such scrutiny.
The tone of the panel's title negates the ben-
efits of transparency by making it seem like an
unreasonable demand. Transparency is vital if
democratic governments are to function demo-
cratically, and it is required of corporations to
some extent in order to ensure that they are oper-
ating within the bounds of the law - especially
with regards to labor and environmental regula-
tions. The idea of "surviving scrutiny" implies
that simple monitoring to determine if such reg-
ulations are being followed is inherently harm-
ful to the companies. Corporations facing such
scrutiny often opt to greenwash, which is the
strategy of adopting a handful of token environ-
mental and labor standards in order to portray an
image of environmental and social responsibil-
ity. Greenwashers tout self-monitoring in order to
enhance this image - for example, Nike points
to its own code of conduct banning child labor in
its factories whenever it receives criticism for its
labor practices. However, self-monitoring lacks
the accountability necessary in order to ensure
that standards are actually followed, and not just
symbolically touted in order to deflect criticism
- making it ultimately ineffective.
An entire industry of damage controllers has
spawned in order to help companies confront
and neutralize scrutiny. Dezenhall Resources
is one especially effective firm, which prides
itself on coming to the rescue of clients who
are "facing product recalls, health, safety, or
environmental concerns, facility or worker-
related safety incidents, financial or corpo-
rate controversies, community disputes and
security threats." Its strategy of spin involves
directly confronting scrutiny in order to defuse
it, as criticism creates "conflicts that only stop
when the aggressors themselves are put at
risk." Dezenhall Resources even glorifies the.
battle against such scrutiny by claiming that it
"offers unexploited opportunities - and com-
petitive advantages - for companies willing to
assert themselves in the face of adversity." Eric
Dezenhall, the organization's founder, claims
in his book "Nail'em: Confronting High-Pro-
file Attacks on Celebrities and Businesses" that
increased scrutiny of corporations is the result
of the "Culture of Attack" in which those who
challenge corporations are inherently self-serv-
ing individuals whose final goal is to assume
the status and wealth of those they are fighting
against. In this new cultural environment, there
is no such thing as higher ideals of social jus-
tice, only unadulterated greed that makes the
"have-nots" now the "want-mores." Under this
assumption, those who suffer as a result of real
corporate greed move from victims to-"attack-
ers," losing the moral high ground and becom-
ing fair game for reprisals.
What Dezenhall fails to acknowledge is that
there is no money to be made by pressuring
Nike to end child labor, by investigating allega-
tions that Coca-Cola kills union leaders or by
criticizing Starbucks for intentionally stifling
independent coffee shops. Dezenhall and his
ideological ilk lump enterprising individuals
suing high-profile celebrities for monetary gain
together with reform-seeking victims of corpo-
rate policies. Activists with mostly noble inten-
tions are associated with a group commonly
viewed with contempt, negating their altruism
and invalidating their credibility.
Destroying the legitimacy of the scrutinizers
by painting them as covetous opportunists is the
job of the public relations officials coming on'
Thursday. "Surviving Scrutiny" will be an exer-
cise in moral jujitsu, as representatives from
among the world's most powerful corporations
with the most abhorrent labor and environment
a track records are given free reign to portray
themselves as the true victims of oppression.
Mallen can be reached
at emmallen@umich.edu..
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Textbook publishers follow
economic facts of life
To THE DAILY:
Your recent article (PIRGIM looks for ways
to lower textbook prices, 02/11/2005) contains a
couple inaccuracies that need correcting. The
calculus text you cite in your article is in fact,
published by Prentice Hall, not Pearson Custom
Publishing and carries a price of 47.59 pounds
which is roughly $80 at current exchange rates.
This price still puts the title at a lower price
than the United States, though not close to the
rate you list. Publishers are not out of line in this
practice - all companies (and even universities)
who market internationally price their product to
local markets. It's an economic fact of life.
Public Interest Research Group's comments
on the frequency of revisions are equally mis-
leading. Its sample of 59 schools is a small and
inconclusive view on a handful of books. As
a publisher, we certainly know how often we
bring out new editions, and the blended aver-
age is closer to four years than three. Clearly,
this difference corrupts the numbers behind
PIRG's claim that prices of new editions are
out-stripping inflation. I should also point out
that the Student Monitor, an independent agen-
cy with no axe to grind, shows book prices
pacing inflation over the past five years.
At Pearson, we appreciate PIRG's
concerns. And we're giving students and fac-
ulty more choice and value with hundreds of
lower-priced options through our custom pub-
lishing, brief versions and SafariX efforts. In
all this debate, a real effort by the largest pub-
lisher is being ignored because it doesn't make
the story work. How about some credit where
credit is due?
And how about the bigger question: Why is
this debate centering on textbooks, which at 3-5
percent of the cost of college, are an insignificant
overall piece of the cost?
Gary L. June
Chief Marketing Officer
Pearson Education
EXPRESS YOUR OPINIOS
JOIN THE DAMLY'S
EDITORIAL ROARDI
MONDAYS, THURSDAYS 6 P.M.
420 MAYNARD ST.
OPINION@ICHIGANDAIL.COM
6
6
VIEWPOINT
What divestment really means
By CARMEL SALHI AND TAREK R. DIKA
Throughout the United States, there has been
much discussion surrounding the question of
divestment. However, there have also been con-
sistent misrepresentations of both the intent and
motivation behind divestment - particularly
at the University. Among the most common
misperceptions is the idea that divestment at
the University seeks to eliminate any and all
financial relations with the state of Israel. This is
simply not the case. Divestment has a very spe-
cific aim: to divest from those corporations who
directly support the ongoing Israeli occupation.
According to the 2004 U.S. State Depart-
ment's "Country Report on Human Rights
Practices" for Israel and the occupied territo-
ries. the Israeli Defense Force has used "exces-
nated the brutal tactics of the Israeli military.
In fact, the effects of the occupation on the
everyday lives of ordinary Palestinians extends
far beyond the explicit use or threat of violence
and well into cultural, educational and social
institutions, which has been a consistent phe-
nomenon throughout the history of the Israeli
occupation. For example, in July 1980, Mili-
tary Order 854 gave the IDF the authority to
set the curriculum, oversee choice and use of
textbooks and prohibit teachers from being
members of political parties or participating in
political activities.
Every year, the United States gives Israel
billions in military aid, despite Israel's over-
whelming list of human rights violations and
blatant disregard for international law. It is
the American taxpayer who shoulders the
such involvement does not increase the pros-
pects for peace on either side.
The University has always prided itself on
its progressive values, whether it is civil rights,
affirmative action or divestment from tobacco
companies and South Africa during its apart-
heid period. The role of students has histori-
cally been pivotal in promoting social change
- the issue of divestment is no exception.
The unmistakable and persistent human rights
violations committed against the Palestinians
in the occupied territories are indefensible,
regardless of one's political orientation. The
occupation has perpetuated a cycle of violence
for 37 years - it is far past time to end it. End-
ing the occupation and the cycle of violence it
has spawned is the motivation behind divest-
ment at the University.
6
0
F sau .r +t t w.c vx cxasr rsu
LR LikA.i t31. Lk1 F V W .1V1 wyV ta.-Y1Ai:
: