Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News


10. June 2004 • dilleym
Email this article

Show your support for stopping the SAPAC plan at the…


Thurs, June 17th at 1:30pm

Great Lakes Room

Palmer Drive Commons Bldg


  • Do you remember the feeling in the room at the first Our Voices Count meeting in the MSA chambers?
  • Do you remember the power of so many people coming together to talk about the importance of SAPAC on our campus?

We plan to re-create that atmosphere for the Board of Regents at their next meeting!

OVC has several powerful speakers lined up. Now we NEED YOU!
We need to pack the room to show that students still care about saving SAPAC.



  1. Why dressed in black?
       —T.J.    Jun. 10 '04 - 04:59AM    #
  2. t.j.,
    i’m not sure, but if i were to guess, it may be a sign of standing in solidarity with the countless number of sexual assault victims…

    just a hunch,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 10 '04 - 10:24AM    #
  3. Thanks for the condescention. I understand the whole “standing in solidarity” BS (as if wearing the same color t-shirt is at all indicative of a “showing of support.”).

    But why black? Seems arbitrary to me. Why not pink? Or Brown?
       —T.J.    Jun. 10 '04 - 11:59AM    #
  4. TJ, I know nothing of the specifics of this event, but black garb is pretty traditional for tragedy/bad things.

    Getting eveybody dressed in pink might be better in terms of being unusual and thus more high-profile—but since few people are likely to have pink clothes, participation is likely to be lower.

    I think that the traditional symbolism of dressing all in black plus the high likelihood that people will have black clothes to wear explain the decision fairly well.
       —Murph    Jun. 10 '04 - 12:18PM    #
  5. PS…TJ, what would you suggest as a better show of support than dressing similarly?

    Much as some of them would probably like to, the pro-SAPAC supporters can hardly hold a loud, chant-filled rally in the regents’ meeting. Getting people to show up to the meeting dressed in a fashion that visibly aligns themselves with a certain position seems like a noticeable-without-being-disruptive means of support.
       —Murph    Jun. 10 '04 - 12:21PM    #
  6. Wearing one color is a subtle show of support. As Murph said, we can’t exactly shout as a group, nor will there be enough time for everyone who attends to speak up. Though, I could understand why the idea of subtlety might be a bit above you.

    As for “why not pink/brown/etc.,” you’re just being contrary (surprise). Wear pink to a funeral next time, dufus.
       —Eric Goldberg    Jun. 10 '04 - 12:31PM    #
  7. t.j.,
    why do you assume that i was being condesending??? you asked, what seemed to me, as an honest question, which i responded with an honest repsonse…

    “Why not pink…or brown?” -t.j.

    i think black would be the appropriate color, being in light of a tragedy…pink?, well that just wouldn’t have the same effect…

    -ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 10 '04 - 12:38PM    #
  8. Ari,

    Actually, I think pink would have more of an effect. Or orange.

    Black is not a very noticeable color. Maybe if everyone were wearing an indentical t-shirt, I might notice it. But if everyone came in wearing pink, I would definitely notice it, no matter what was on the shirt.


    Again, I will not respond to your childish personal attacks. Beyond that, I am not being contrary, I am simply asking why black was chosen. And as you can see above, there is a reason why I think black might not be the best choice.

    Or, if you are going to wear black, maybe a black funeral veil would get the message across better. Then, people like me wouldn’t have to ask, we would understand that you see it as a tragedy.


    What I would suggest are letters to the editor of every major newspaper and news magazine I could find. I would use my Daily editorial staff to call up every former stringer working at a major newspaper and try to blow the lid off of this and make as big a stink as possible. I would try to get as many people and organizations as possible to write letters to Royster Harper to tell her how ridiculous she is being, as well as Coleman, pointing out to her that 1/10th of her salary could fund SAPAC, and allude to the fact that she is more interested in buying a yacht (or whatever) than providing support to rape victims.

    Any and all of those would be more productive than just going to a meeting wearing a black t-shirt. Look, you have been meeting and talking about this for months. They know damn well that there are a lot of students who are pissed about it.

    Every time you guys protest something, you do it in the exact same way. After the millionth protest, having a bunch of people wearing the same t-shirt loses its effect. You have to adapt to the environment, or else your methods become ineffective. I get the whole 60’s style protest/demonstration/sit-in thing and the allure that comes from the romanticization of it. But when you do it EVERY TIME over EVERY ISSUE, it eventually just becomes noise that is easily drowned out.

    Finally, I will say that I am against SAPAC. Why? They are sexist. I was sexually assaulted, and when I called SAPAC, they told me there was nothing they could do, as they were meant only to help women.

    Why should I support them when they weren’t there to support me?
       —T.J.    Jun. 10 '04 - 05:07PM    #
  9. Thomas, maybe you want to organize some support for yourself then.
       —Mark    Jun. 10 '04 - 05:21PM    #
  10. You say no one told you “why black,” but you didn’t read Murph or my posts closely enough. It’s in mourning, for rape and victims that might be served better by a more campus-linked SAPAC. Sheesh, nothing is good enough for you, even the way we protest SAPAC.

    As for the letters, press coverage, of course people are doing that, buffoon. This is an additional way to get the message across. You assume that because people are doinging A, they must not be doing B, C, or D. Simplistic.
       —Eric Goldberg    Jun. 10 '04 - 05:34PM    #
  11. Typo: “the way we protest SAPAC” should be “the way we protest SAPAC funding/reallocation issues”

       —Eric Goldberg    Jun. 10 '04 - 05:35PM    #
  12. Eric,

    Again, I will not respond to your childish personal attacks, except to say that if you keep doing it, I will not respond to you period.

    If people are trying to make a stink about SAPAC, it’s not working. I have yet to see anything outside of the Daily, here and goodspeedupdate about it.

    Maybe if instead of spending time color coordinating your outfits, you actually went out and did the legwork needed, something might change.

    And maybe if you asked for/pushed SAPAC to stop being sexist, you might have a larger pool from which to draw support.

    As it is, the death of SAPAC is no bigger tragedy than SAPAC not supporting men who have been sexually assaulted. What happened, in essence, is that now women are left to be treated equally with men, none of them getting support.
       —T.J.    Jun. 10 '04 - 07:25PM    #
  13. t.j.-

    i agree with eric and murph but also want to add that b/c it is spring and the weather is nicer, people tend to wear more pastel/lighter colors and thus the black clothes worn by those standing in solidarity will be more noticeable. it is a good reminder that just because it is summer and many students are off in fun places, this is still a very important issue that needs to be taken seriously and will not be forgotten just because it happens to be a break for many students on campus.

    peace out.
       —sam    Jun. 10 '04 - 07:27PM    #
  14. in addition, t.j., although i realize that this may be difficult, you should use your experience of being silenced (not having a voice) in order to speak out against others who are also being silenced. yes, what happened to you is wrong, but millions upon millions of women have had to endure (and are still enduring) this experience of being ignored for centuries. supporting the abolishment of SAPAC merely ensures that no one will have a voice; supporting the continuation and existence of a strong SAPAC will ensure that the voices of the future will not also be ignored and silenced – that others in your position will not have to go through a similar experience to yours and be silenced. it seems to me that you are being counterproductive in your arguments and trying to punish current and future victims of sexual assault, etc merely because you yourself were a victim whose voice was not heard.
       —sam    Jun. 10 '04 - 07:36PM    #
  15. “supporting the continuation and existence of a strong SAPAC will ensure that the voices of the future will not also be ignored and silenced”

    How does it do that? If SAPAC comes back, and a guy gets sexually assaulted next year (believe me, it happens every Friday and Saturday night, at the least), he still doesn’t have any help.

    Restoring SAPAC would just reinforce their sexist policies.

    You talk about the women who have been “silenced” all that time. What about the men?

       —T.J.    Jun. 11 '04 - 12:35AM    #
  16. You honestly think SAPAC would turn a victim of sexual assault away because he’s male?

    I think you’re grasping for something to hate here.
       —Elliott    Jun. 11 '04 - 12:48AM    #
  17. t.j. et al,
    i think SAPAC makes it clear that they offer aid to sexual assault victims regardless of gender…if your case is true, then their turning you down was definitly wrong…but that, in my opinion, would mean that they would need help in becoming more helpful, and not just an incident that you would cite to make them a target of your venomous hatred…

    i’m pretty sure that this was one of their talking points this year…

    also, if your goal was to make more resources to sexual assault victims, then it would seem a better use of your time to create a forum for that instead of vehemently protesting the one resource on campus that has offers some assemblence of relief for the victims of such henouis crimes…

    if anyone reading this is involved in SAPAC, i would love to hear your input…

    -ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 11 '04 - 12:58AM    #
  18. I don’t hate SAPAC, I just consider them inept and useless, much like the AATU was. I had landlord problems, and AATU was nowhere to be found. Thus, when I knew about Joe Bernstein sneaking them out of the MSA Code ahead of time, I uncharacteristically kept my mouth shut to encourage justice.

    SAPAC is the same thing. They are a sexist organization and should not be funded by the university as such. If they wanted to change their policies, I would change my opinion accordingly.

    I am going to assume you aren’t EJW and be civil to you. I don’t hate anything, but if I were to hate something, I would have no shortage of things to hate.
       —T.J.    Jun. 11 '04 - 01:16AM    #
  19. By the way, it is not my intent to create a support group of sexual assault victims at UM. I tried to create the Men’s Issues Commission on MSA, but that was railroaded by the PC Police before it even got started. Apparently, it’s only important for WOMEN to get support after being assaulted. That’s fine, so be it. But after my efforts were pooh-poohed, don’t expect me to support your sexist agenda.
       —T.J.    Jun. 11 '04 - 01:19AM    #
  20. Wow, this has to be some sort of record. Only 2 hrs, 18 min between when T.J. switches stances on an issue. (Post #8: Tell administration how stupid it is to slash SAPAC. Post #12: SAPAC should be abolished because they help some people, and not everyone)

    What bullet-proof logic: If an organization doesn’t help the whole population, they have no right to exist. Goodbye, March of Dimes, Catholic Church, AARP, and Maternity Stores! gasp!
       —Eric Goldberg    Jun. 11 '04 - 02:33AM    #
  21. Goldberg,

    Apparently, my whole point flew right over your head. I did not switch stances on anything. I was not saying that I think Royster is being ridiculous, if you had actually READ before you posted, you would have noticed the CONTEXT in which I was speaking. Namely, I was saying that THEY should tell her that she was being ridiculous…because I was speaking from THEIR perspective.

    As well, when did I ever say that organizations that don’t help everyone don’t deserve to exist? I simply said they shouldn’t be FUNDED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

    Please tell me you didn’t go to UM. I would hate to think that such a lack of logic and comprehension could come from a UM alum…
       —T.J.    Jun. 11 '04 - 05:06AM    #
  22. Wharry,

    I did indeed graduate from UM. Though, I cannot say my degree program was so intellectually rigorous as a Kinesiology/Sports Management degree. Some day, I will live up to your standards, but it’s hard. I keep telling myself, “baby steps.”

    Waiting to see you protest the University-funded wheelchair ramps,
       —Eric Goldberg    Jun. 11 '04 - 10:59AM    #
  23. TJ- Again, and honestly I find it suspicious that you’ve been a victim of every form of discrimination known to man, the instances of males being sexually assaulted is a pitance compared to the number of women. Complaining that you don’t get equal resources can best be solved by ensuring that EVERYONE has adequate resources, not by eliminating anything that you percieve to have a bias against your poor, white, male ass.
       —js    Jun. 11 '04 - 12:47PM    #
  24. I doubt if it is appropriate to beat up on T.J. for having a kinesiology degree. That’s sort of…..”“classist””, isn’t it?
       —David Boyle    Jun. 12 '04 - 09:33PM    #
  25. No more “classist” than assuming that a UM alum holds certain opinions or excellence beyond a graduate from another institution, epecially when used as an attack..

    Though, as they say, “two wrongs don’t make a right,” so point taken. And sorry if I offended you.
       —Eric Goldberg    Jun. 14 '04 - 02:07PM    #