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: :