Viewpoint

Student activists should be wary of the administration

When myself and 29 other students occupied the president's office to demand the humane treatment of workers who make University apparel, we were pleasantly surprised to hear that President Lee Bollinger supported our actions. He said the University should admire our passion and leadership on the issue of sweatshop labor. Bollinger didn't ask DPS to haul us off to jail, he didn't ban the media from coming to his office to speak with students and he didn't even lock the door to the second-floor bathroom.

Wow! Finally, a student's administrator, a man certainly deserving of the praise and admiration heaped upon him by the student body and local media. Don't believe the hype! I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but Bollinger has smacked the University with a public relations campaign the likes of which only President Clinton could match. Why would Bollinger send his henchmen to arrest and drag us off to the clink in front of cameras, only to watch the footage on the national news in his bedroom the same night? The man isn't stupid. He knows that every campus issue is fought in the arena of public opinion. When he convinced the world that the students taking action against his administration were his heroes, he ruined the media's story of confrontation and conflict, two key elements needed for a successful student action.

Bollinger's reaction to the sit-in was not proof that he has love for University students. It was not proof that his administration looks favorably upon student activism. His behavior was the implementation of a strategy created to quell the drama and prevent his grand reputation from being tarnished in the national media.

Bollinger presents himself as an anomaly to the traditional administrator. During the 51-hour sit-in, I learned that our president will give students the wink and a smile, but when the administrative wheels begin to turn, it's business as usual.

As a member of SOLE's bargaining committee I sat face-to-face with Bollinger and the University's head lawyer, Marvin Krislov, to hammer out an agreement outlining how the University would end its shameful participation in the practice of sweatshop labor. Our "negotiations" with Bollinger's administration were entirely two-faced. In a private meeting and statements to the media, Bollinger declared that he cared about students and was willing to work with us to form a mutually agreeable University Code of Conduct to end the use of sweatshop labor in the production of Michigan apparel. Yet, after a single meeting where SOLE spent a painstaking two hours to explain the issue to our president, he unilaterally released the University's "official" Code of Conduct 24 hours later. This, without hearing even a word from "his heroes." As students, we cannot stand by and assume that any administrator has our best interests at heart. In the '60s, student movements and activism ignited because there was a clear distinction between the ideology of students and that of the administration. Today, administrators follow "Clintonian politics," creating apathy and warm fuzzy feelings by aligning themselves with every social justice issue students advocate. The most dangerous administration is not the one that creates an adversarial relationship between itself and the students, but the one that always claims to be listening and sympathetic.

Don't be wooed by the warm sentiments of the administration. It is essential that students take the lead in all issues of social justice.

- This viewpoint was written by LSA senior Trevor Gardner, who may be contacted over e-mail at trevorgg@umich.edu, and signed by LSA senior Saladin Ahmed, RC sophomore Julie Fry, LSA sophomore Lee Palmer and LSA junior Joseph Sexauer.

04-02-99