A Renaissance man
in search of beauty
GO TO p. 7
10 May 2000
The Graduate
VOICE
GRADUATE STUDENT SENATE
Protests in Washington
Together
we stand
A trip to the capital of capitalism;
World Bank and New World Order
by Anders Jonsson
WASHINGTON—I arrived in Washington
with some friends on Sunday afternoon, not
as well prepared as I could have been, but
ready to do some protesting. Since we were
new to the city, we wandered the streets in
search of someone who would inform us of
the exact location of the protests. Even though
there were few people out, you could sense
that the atmosphere was charged with excite-
ment. Most people we met spoke to us in an
unusually frank manner, and the policemen
guarding selected sections of streets and parks
seemed nervous. Some protesters had volun-
teered to serve as bike-riding messengers, and
one of them told us where to find the protest
headquarters. On Saturday, the protesters had
been driven out from their previous dwelling
by police under the questionable pretext of a
hazardous propane tank. The new headquar-
ters were located in an old church well to the
north of downtown Washington. We decided
to take the subway there to see what was be-
ing planned for Monday. On our way to the
nearest station we saw that some fraternity
brothers at George Washington University
had stated their very own opinion of the pro-
test in block letters on the wall of their house:
“We are American capitalists and damn proud
of it!”
We entered the church just as a group of
around 50 demonstrants was planning action
against Monday morning’s IMF meeting. The
participants presented their ideas by raising
their hands and asking to speak. People
seemed tired after a long day; it took the group
a long time to reach a decision, which was
taken by voting. The issue was whether to con-
centrate the action on blocking the entrance
to the hotels where the IMF delegates were
staying, holding the guests hostage, or block-
ing intersections so that the delegates could
not be transported to the IMF building. Af-
ter many arguments back and forth, the
majority decided to go with the intersections.
This was clearly not a popular decision with
everyone. The group was to meet at 4 A.M.
at Dupont Circle—just north of the city cen-
ter—and plan further action from there. I
asked myself how this group of people would
stand any chance against a force of trained
and disciplined police officers. Even though
the protesters had been trained in acts of civil
disobedience, the lack of organization was
apparent. During the evening, we had heard
many other rumors of where and when people
would gather, and I’m sure that some poor
souls made it early in the morning just to find
that nobody else had traveled to the same lo-
cation as they. A seasoned protester from
Illinois actually welcomed this source of
disinformation and the lack of organized lead-
ership, since it made it harder for police to
predict what the demonstrators would do.
Intrigued by the prospect of being close to
the fire, we decided to stay up all night and
join the demonstrants at Dupont Circle. As
we were approaching the circle, a police car
Xenophobia can be
retroactive
GO TO p. 5
T H E
U NIVE R SIT Y
Geraldine Vatan
Injustice rains
Lousy weather and the chicanery of Washington police soaked bodies and strove to weaken spirits.
We all know that it takes far more than that.
was hiding behind a large apartment build-
ing, which indicated that police had heard of
the early morning activities. This came as no
big surprise, given that we had obtained the
same information relatively easily. The Wash-
ington police had learned from Seattle: they
were determined not to let the situation get
out of hand.
To make things worse for the
demonstrants, at 3:45 the skies opened and
rain started to pour down. Scattered groups
of protesters slowly started to gather around
the circle. As they were organizing, the circle
was filling with police vehicles, appearing as
if out of nowhere. Two legal observers gave us
a telephone number to call in case we got ar-
rested; we wrote it on our arms with a black
marker pen. I estimate that not more than
100 protesters had arrived by 4:30. In the light
of the bustling police activity around the
circle, the demonstrants decided to move. An
alternative rendez-vous point was selected on
my friends’ map. During the discussion, a bus
carrying delegates under police escort calmly
passed by, right in front of our eyes; nobody
had any chance to stop it.
The protesters once again divided into
smaller groups with the purpose of confusing
the police while relocating. Arriving at the new
Go to Jonsson on p. 2
The new industrial revolution:
technology meets slavery
GO TO p. 4
G R A D U A T E V O I C E
“…some of us were physically attacked by U.S. Marshals: we were hurled
against walls, pepper-sprayed directly in the face, or thrown on the floor
and beaten. At least two minors were forced against a wall by their necks
in strangulation holds and threatened with further violence. The U.S.
Marshals told us that we would be going to D.C. Jail, where we would be
raped, beaten, and given AIDS or murdered by ‘faggots’ and ‘niggers’.”
—From a public statement by jailed IMF/World Bank protesters
OF MA SSA C H USE T T S, A M H ERS T
Changes must start at home
China yes! Marketization no!
by Heinrich Huber, GEO Grievance Coördinator
AMHERST—For the Graduate Employee
Organization (GEO) at the University of Mas-
sachusetts, the world is an increasingly smaller
place. GEO is a union that represents a di-
verse group of graduate students, including
many international students at our workplace.
Many of our members are from China. We
have been a proud union shop affiliated with
the United Auto Workers (UAW) since 1991.
We stand together to support organizing
drives of graduate student workers around the
country. To succeed in an increasingly multi-
ethnic environment our local union has seen
the need to focus on worker solidarity across
cultures and nationalities. We have done so
by using a more inclusive rhetoric. Our UAW
International union should follow this ex-
ample and strive to deliver a message that is
more inclusive to all people regardless of na-
tionality.
The agreements to which our country sub-
scribes should support the rights of workers
everywhere instead of providing incentives for
exploitation. The agenda of global capital is
Zeppelins will
rule the skies
GO TO p. 6
1
READ THE WHOLE DOCUMENT: GO TO p. 3
VOLUME 13 No. 4, 10 May 2000
NEW, PROGRESSIVE
FUNDING SCHEME
PROPOSED FOR SLSO
by the GSS Executive Officers
AMHERST—The Student Legal Services Of-
fice (SLSO) receives its funding from two
sources: the Graduate Student Senate and the
Student Government Association. To date the
SGA/GSS funding split has been 75–25%, re-
spectively, of the total SLSO budget. This
policy came from the Legal Services Advisory
Board some years back and was written into
the SLSO by-laws. In this advisory board, the
SGA and the GSS, along with Legal Services
director Charles DiMare, decide what they
think the SLSO’s budget should be. It is in
the context of this decision that the 75-25
funding split occurred. For the past few years
the advisory board has not been a functional
part of the decision-making process. As a re-
sult, the director and staff of SLSO have
formulated the budget, and the governing
bodies then decide how much to allocate dur-
ing their annual budget hearings
For the last five years the GSS has not been
able to provide its share of the SLSO budget.
This is because the 25% of SLSO’s budget
that the GSS is supposed to provide corre-
sponds to 30% of its own budget. On the
other hand, the 75% that the SGA has been
contributing makes up only 12% of their to-
tal budget. The SGA has an annual budget of
$1.6 million whereas the GSS has an annual
budget of $275,000. This is because the SGA
has a larger constituency and therefore brings
in more money. Having to spend almost one-
third of its total budget on the SLSO has put
a disproportionate burden on the GSS. It is
in the context of this disproportionate strain
that the GSS has proposed a new funding
framework for the SLSO. Instead of funding
a percentage of the SLSO budget, we propose
Go to GSS on p. 2
undemocratic and unaccountable. It must be
slowed and stopped by whatever means nec-
essary, including stopping the U.S. Congress
from extending the normalization of perma-
nent trade relations with China. The U.S.
cannot stop the increasing marketization of
China or its admission into the World Trade
Organization (WTO), but Congress should
at least retain some leverage over the situa-
tion in China.
For better or worse, we pay a price for what
happens around the world. The autonomy
of our nation states is being eroded by the
current global-trading régime. Transnational
American corporations operate—and treat
their workers—in other countries in a way
that directly affects jobs and living standards
in the U.S. Global inequality continues to
grow, forcing governments to compete against
each other in a race to the bottom;
transnational corporations are given free rein
to exploit workers and communities outside
Go to Huber on p. 2
 P O L I T I C S
2 T H E G R A D U A T E V O I C E 10 May 2000

Jonsson continued from p. 1
meeting point, we joined another group of
demonstrants. People seemed undecided and
were discussing whether to take any direct
action or to get some rest and wait for the
demonstration march later in the morning.
The number of intersections to cover simply
seemed too huge for the small number of
people who were there. One alternative that
the group discussed was to throw themselves
on the street as soon as they saw a vehicle car-
rying delegates approaching and try to delay
it. Some members of the group decided to
continue with the operation as originally
planned. My friends and I were soaking wet
and getting very tired after having stayed up
all night. We reasoned that there was no pros-
pect of stopping the delegates from reaching
the IMF building; so we decided to leave the
group, get a couple of hours of sleep, and join
the demonstration again later in the after-
noon. We later learned that some groups
actually did set up blockades of intersections
and were eventually arrested by the police.
I was honestly surprised that no more
people showed up in the morning. It struck
me how motivated you have to be on a per-
sonal level in order to take action against
authorities. Maybe the effects of globalization
will have to reach far greater dimensions be-
fore enough people realize what is going on
and become involved. Issues like globalization
are much easier to talk about than to protest
against. In addition, the immensity and long-
term nature of this issue makes it hard to
conceptualize without focusing on more im-
mediate, down-to-earth problems. For
example, you may have an uncle in Guate-
mala that was mistreated by his foreman or
get truly annoyed by the fact that the socks
you just bought are labeled “assembled in the
Dominican Republic of U.S. components.”
Indeed, the demonstrants in Washington were
made up mainly of grass-roots organizations
fighting for women’s rights, the freedom of
Tibet, and similar issues. What was so inter-
esting about the protest in Washington was
that it brought all of these smaller groups to-
gether. People are just starting to realize that
in order to make changes you need the sup-
port and awareness of many. In this respect,
the Washington protest did not fail.
On Sunday, the protesters had locked
themselves to strategic intersections in the area
around the IMF and the World Bank and
managed to delay the arrival of a few delegates.
A fair amount of media attention was dedi-
cated to the demonstrations; vans from several
TV and radio stations were present in Dupont
Circle. On Monday afternoon we joined a
protest march that crisscrossed the streets of
downtown Washington. The demonstrants
had made puppets and protest signs and were
shouting slogans such as “Whose streets? Our
streets!” and “Spank the Bank!”
At around 9 A.M. on Monday morning,
around 5,000 people assembled south of the
White House and marched triumphantly to-
wards the IMF building. John, a music major
from UMass, was one of the people that took
part in the march. He traveled to Washing-
ton because he had heard about the Seattle
protest and had read the A16 website. At 20th
and Pennsylvania, police fenced in the
demonstrants and blocked off intersecting
roads, effectively trapping the entire parade.
The officers wore no badges and left only a
single-file exit for people who agreed to leave
the march voluntarily. John was with a group
of people that entered the fenced-in area as
one of the barricades broke up. Police put up
six lines of troops against the protesters and
both sides started putting on gas masks or
other protection as the tension rose.
To avoid direct conflict, a deal was struck
between the protesters and the police: if the
protesters backed off and approached the po-
lice lines row by row, the police would
withdraw three of the lines and let them pro-
ceed with their march to the IMF. However,
as the protesters approached the remaining
police lines, they were arrested one by one,
handcuffed and sent away to city prisons [see
article on next page]. Ironically, they were
charged with “crossing police lines.” John was
among the people that got arrested. He was
astounded by the way the police handled the
situation and by the fact that they were able
to arrest non-violent demonstrants for no
apparent reason. In preparation, John had left
his ID and wallet in the church where he had
spent the night and remained anonymous
during the arrest. In prison, he was not at all
frightened by his fellow inmates; on the other
hand, he was amazed by the offensive treat-
ment he got from the U.S. Marshals. On
Friday evening, after spending five days in jail,
and long after the departure of his fellow
demonstrants, John was finally released and
allowed to travel back to Amherst.

The demonstrants had made puppets and protest signs and were Photography by
shouting slogans: “Whose streets? Our streets!” “Spank the Bank!” Geraldine Vatan

GSS continued from p. 1
that each governing body contribute an equal
percentage of its own budget in order to fund
Legal Services. If the SGA and the GSS each
give 16% of their total budget, the SLSO will
be fully funded. The Graduate Student Sen-
ate plans to allocate 16% of its budget to the
Legal Services Office, and has asked the SGA
to do the same.
This proposal is completely fair because
each governing body will allocate an equal per-
centage of its total budget to fund SLSO.
Some have argued that graduate students
make up 25% of the student population, or
that graduate students use 25% of the ser-
vices anyway, and thus should fund 25% of
the total SLSO budget. As mentioned above,
the GSS simply cannot afford to use 30% of
its budget to fund SLSO. In addition, the
SLSO is a public institution and outwardly
states that it upholds indigent law; for that
reason, the current consumer model is an
unethical funding and operating framework.
A “you get what you pay for” model of legal
services, in which each organization pays a
rate proportional to the size of the student
body it represents, or the amount of services
it uses, is unfair because it replicates a con-
sumer fee-for-service model that we need to
abandon. Since the very purpose of SLSO is
to offer free legal services to any student who
cannot afford them, it is the responsibility of
the entire student community to lend Legal
Services its full and fair support.
In the eyes of the law, the SGA and the
GSS are considered individuals with annual
incomes. In terms of funding a public insti-
tution, each individual should give an equal
percentage of his or her income. This creates
a fair system for everyone, because both groups
will contribute equal portions of their bud-
gets to the SLSO. To say that the GSS should
pay 30% of its budget and the SGA should
pay only 12% is completely unfair. To pro-
pose that graduate students pay fees if the GSS
cannot afford to pay 30% of its budget goes
against the mission of the SLSO, indigent law,
and public legal service. It is only in terms of
a “you get what you pay for” model that the
GSS can be framed as “slacking” for not be-
ing able to provide its share of the SLSO
budget. How can this be when the GSS has
been paying between 25 and 34% of its bud-
get whereas the SGA has been allocating
between only between 12 and 14% of theirs?
There is no way that SLSO can back such a
consumer fee-for-service model without go-
ing against indigent law and the American Bar
Association’s juridical ethics for a public in-
stitution of law.
The Graduate Student Senate is commit-
ted to working with the SLSO in finding other
funding sources to hire a fourth attorney, fur-
ther their litigation rights, and maintain pay
increases for the workers. The Graduate Stu-
dent Senate extremely values SLSO but is
unable to keep up with the current 75/25
funding proposal. Therefore GSS is moving
towards a more fair and equitable funding
framework. While funding priorities of the
two student populations vary considerably, it
is our position that the SGA, the GSS, and
the SLSO must engage in a productive dia-
logue and work towards finding solutions
through which the SLSO can generate funds
additional to our financial contributions.
However, these discussions need to be based
in juridical ethics while embracing public in-
digent law. Until the SGA reformulates its
funding proposal to the mission of SLSO and
public legal ethics, there will continue to be
an ideological and political rift between the
two governing bodies. The consumer model
presently used by the SGA is the antithesis of
public law and the mission of the Student
Legal Services Office. Let us maintain access
to legal services for all regardless of the amount
of services “paid for,” while simultaneously
embracing a fair and ethical funding frame-
work that maintains indigence along with the
mission of a public institution of law.

10 May 2000
Huber continued from p. 1
and to move jobs and production away from
the U.S.
The campaign carried out by our Interna-
tional union and the AFL-CIO regarding
China has, however, fallen short of our aspi-
rations. It has shied away from taking on
global capital, the real perpetrator of the
charges leveled against China, and instead has
focused on the exploitation and human-rights
issues that unrestrained capital has created. It
has also taken advantage of the long history
of anti-Chinese racism and anti-communism
in the U.S. As unionists, we should strive to
exclude ourselves from such a reactionary and
racist campaign.
The labor movement is attempting to halt
the extension of permanent normal trade re-
lations to China because globalization has led
to a decline in living standards worldwide and
has been a disaster for American workers.
Globalization has also been a disaster for de-
veloping nations. Instead of resulting in a wide
distribution of wealth, rapid globalizers have
witnessed a growing gap between rich and
poor, rising corruption and higher levels of
environmental pollution.
Unfortunately. and hypocritically, the cam-
paign to exclude China has argued to do so
on the grounds that the Chinese government
does not have adequate labor standards and
that it uses prison and child labor, violates
human rights and does not allow workers a
democratic right to organize independent la-
bor unions. Countries like Korea, Indonesia,
Guatemala, and Saudi Arabia are also guilty
of these same violations, but that has not de-
terred the U.S. government from trading with
them.
What is even more distressing is that these
charges can not only be leveled against many
of the U.S.’s trading partners but also against
the U.S. itself, whose human-rights record is
questionable. Just to name one example: an
increasing number of U.S. prisoners are now
working in the prison-industrial complex,
many of them receiving between 23 cents
and $1.15 per day.
The biggest threat to North American liv-
ing standards today is not high prices but the
undermining of our wages and benefits. U.S.
workers cannot compete against the wages
that transnational corporations get away with
paying in other countries. Globalization cre-
ates soaring inequality between workers and
the wealthy, both within and among coun-
tries.
The result of all this has been the tram-
pling of workers’ rights everywhere and a
lowering of wage standards around the globe
to maximize corporate profits. Worst of all,
the savings in labor costs gained from mov-
ing production to China go straight into
corporate pockets. In return, multinational
companies subject their workers to unsafe and
unhealthy workplaces. Our union should not
encourage American workers to see exploited
workers in China as the enemy. This Cold-
War type of campaign only serves to divert
attention away from the real problem: Ameri-
can transnational corporations are being
allowed to exploit workers.
Language that excludes serves no one ex-
cept the boss. Workers will continue to be the
real losers if they remain divided.
P O L I T I C S
T H E G R A D U A T E
A16 prisoners speak out
The following statement was written by 70 of the male protest-
ers arrested during the IMF protests and incarcerated for over a
week. The writers consolidated ideas, suggestions, and editorial
comments for the letter by passing suggestions between bars,
from cell to cell.
WASHINGTON—We, the male prisoners
arrested in Washington during the week of
the A16 demonstrations against the IMF and
the World Bank, wish to express our solidar-
ity with our fellow inmates, as well as with
prisoners around the world who die and are
tortured daily, often simply because they ask
to be treated fairly, equally, and justly. Sec-
ond, we wish to express our sincere thanks to
the many supporters who stayed outside the
jail in solidarity with us, and to those who
sent email, wrote letters, and made phone calls
on our behalf. Also, we would like to thank
the elected officials and members of Congress
that supported us.
We wish to express our deepest thanks to
the noble and tireless efforts of the volunteers
with the Midnight Special Law Collective and
the National Lawyers Guild. Most of all, we
would like to express our deepest gratitude to
our sisters in the adjacent cell block, whose
powerful spirits and attitudes kept us strong
during the past week. Collectively, this sup-
portive response stands as testament to a
growing worldwide community of resistance
to unjust economic globalization and to the
increasing corporate control over our daily
lives.
Over the past five days we have been
shuttled through the D.C./Federal judicial
system. Despite the relatively trivial charges
that most of us received (“crossing a police
line,” “parading without a permit,” or “incom-
moding”) and our shared decision to remain
silent when asked to identify ourselves, we
were subjected to a series of “divide and con-
quer” tactics, both psychological and physical.
We were denied contact with our lawyers for
consecutive periods of more than 30 hours at
a time, left handcuffed and shackled for up
to eight hours, moved up to ten times from
holding cell to holding cell; many of us were
denied food for more than 30 hours and de-
nied water for up to ten hours at a time.
Though many of us were soaking wet after
Monday’s protest, we were refused dry cloth-
ing, and left shackled and shivering on very
cold floors.
For no apparent reason, some of us were
physically attacked by U.S. Marshals: we were
hurled against walls, pepper-sprayed directly
in the face, or thrown on the floor and beaten.
At least two minors were forced against a wall
by their necks in strangulation holds and
threatened with further violence. The U.S.
Marshals told us that we would be going to
D.C. Jail, where we would be raped, beaten,
and given AIDS or murdered by “faggots” and
“niggers.”
Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton, in a shock-
ing violation of legal ethics, appointed public
attorneys for each member of our group and
ordered them to post our bonds while we were
still in the D.C. Jail, expressly against our
wishes and best interests. In fact, though we
asked repeatedly for our own lawyers, we were
assigned public defenders that consistently
acted in the interests of the prosecution.
V O I C E 3
(All of this came
after the excessive
violence used
against peaceful
demonstrators in
the streets of Wash-
ington. Violence
perpetrated by po-
lice included run-
ning people over
with motorcycles,
clubbing, beating,
pepper-spraying,
tear-gassing, tram-
pling with horses,
and fabricating sce-
narios to legitimize
police action in the
eyes of the public.)
After our arrests
last week, many of
us chose to remain
anonymous to pro-
test these abuses.
We chose to show
solidarity with our
fellow protesters
who were unjustly
charged with felo-
nies and misdemeanors in the act of non-vio- The increasing privatization of prisons cre-
lent civil disobedience against the IMF and ates perverse incentives for prisons to
the World Bank. It is clear to us that the Dis- incarcerate citizens in a system that benefits
trict of Columbia and the Federal Govern- from what can only be called “slave labor.”
ment, by trumping up charges, by arresting We believe that the increasing injustices
frivolously, and by keeping us in jail for a of the prison system and of the IMF/World
week, had much less of a problem with our Bank are fueled by the same naked greed.
alleged infractions than with the fact that we Racism, homophobia, sexism, global and lo-
spoke our minds and faced up to their bru- cal environmental devastation, the ongoing
tality and threats. Simply put, our jail time campaign to criminalize basic labor-organiz-
was not about our trivial charges, but instead ing tools, and many other forms of oppression
about our peaceful, nonviolent, and success- are merely symptoms of a system that places
ful exercise of our constitutionally protected profits above all other values. We believe that
rights to freedom of speech and freedom of love, compassion, liberty, and basic human
assembly. and environmental rights should be the driv-
Despite efforts by prison officials to alien- ing forces in our society. We are determined
ate us from the resident inmate population, to help create a world in which these values
we continue to feel a great sense of commu- are stronger than selfishness.
nity and solidarity with them. Unlike the Our movement is a small part of a world-
“brutal monsters” that the racist, homopho- wide brotherhood and sisterhood joining in
bic U.S. Marshals described to us in offensive solidarity with all the impoverished, op-
and threatening detail, we found our fellow pressed, and progressive people on Earth. For
inmates to be intelligent, caring, and passion- us, breaking the law is not a frivolous gesture,
ately concerned about injustice inflicted on but rather a last-resort means of exposing the
all members of our society by governments, immense powers that we all face when we at-
as well as injustice perpetrated around the tempt to create real, ethical change. We
globe by U.S.-based corporations. Many were continue to draw inspiration from the civil-
informed about the severe injustices caused rights, anti-nuclear, anti-war, environmental,
by IMF/World Bank programs which have labor-rights, and anti-oppression movements.
forced hardships on the majority of the world’s Who are we? We are your sons and daugh-
people. Together we discussed how life in a ters, your sisters and brothers, your fathers,
D.C. prison resembles the lives of residents mothers, grandfathers, and grandmothers. We
in the third world. In the same way that cor- are your co-workers, your healers, your teach-
porate investors profit from the sustained ers, and your students. We will continue to
poverty of poorer countries (poverty sustained risk arrest, and if necessary resist with our very
in part through the loans and policies of IMF/ lives, until we expose this world as one in
World Bank), so too do many investors profit which profits come before people, so that a
from the sustained incarceration of U.S. citi- more just, humane, and free global society
zens as prisons in the U.S. become privatized. may take its place.
 The Graduate THE WORLD

VOICE
4 T H E G R A D U A TT HE E V G
O RI CA ED U A T E V O I C E 10 May 2000

Snapshot: The sweat of your brow

Volume 13 No. 4, 10 May 2000

919 Lincoln Campus Center

University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
(413) 545-2899

Editor: Juan Pablo Fernández

jpf@physics.umass.edu

— Founded in 1987 —

Dan Costello, Editor 1988–1990

John U. Davis, Editor 1990–1991
Pierre Laliberté, Editor 1991–1992
Henry C. Theriault, Editor 1992–1993
Hussein Ibish, Editor 1994–1995
Ali Mir, Prasad Venugopal, Editors 1996
Thomas Taaffe, Editor 1997–1999

WWW.SWENSONFUNNIES.COM

The Graduate Voice is a publication of

the Graduate Student Senate at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Mike Tjivikua, President
tjivikua@educ.umass.edu
Jessica Bianca Erickson, Vice-President
bianca@javanet.com
Jon E. Zibbell, Executive Officer
jonz@anthro.umass.edu
Christine A. Ashley, GWN Coördinator
cashley@educ.umass.edu
Diane E. Matta, EAC Coördinator
dmatta1@aol.com
Olga Vartsaba, Office Manager
olgavartsaba@yahoo.com
The Graduate Voice is committed to pro-
gressive political agendas. It is against racism
and sexism, and despises the law of the
jungle; it is pro-choice, pro-Union, and pro-
Affirmative Action. It firmly believes that
everybody should have access to affordable,
high-quality education, decent housing,
reasonable child care, and fair wages.
The Graduate Voice is 100% Micro$oft free.
Who pays the bill?
Mathematics may not be that rational after all…
by Oliver Axel Ruebenacker, Department of Physics
Imagine this critical situation: A man and a
woman have dinner at a restaurant. The man’s
meal is worth $11.50, the woman’s $10.25.
Including tips and taxes, we arrive at some-
thing like—let’s say for simplicity—$25. Now
we face a most serious question:
Who is going to pay the bill?
In order not to leave the dear reader alone
with this tricky one, we decided to give an
overview of how different cultures and people
deal with this delicate problem.
Conservative: There is no question that the
man pays the bill.
Gentleman: The gentleman goes to the bath-
room and secretly passes by the counter
and pays the bill. When the woman later
wonders about the check, the gentleman
will tell her it’s already paid.
Indonesian: If the woman is from Java, she
believes in equal rights and wants to
pay $12.50.
German: If the two are Germans, the man
pays $13.22 and the woman pays $11.79.
Smith College: If the woman is a Smithie,
she feels sorry for the man—after all, he’s
just a man—and pays the bill.
Graduate Student Senate: If the man is Jon
Zibbell, he wants to let each of them pay
the same fraction of their respective in-
come. Since he is only a poor graduate
student, while the woman is a privileged
white middle-class woman, he pays $5.
Student Goverment Association: If the
woman is Amy Pellegrino, she will discover
that the man hasn’t brought enough money
with him. Therefore, she first eats her own
meal, then eats the meal that the man or-
dered, and finally pays the whole bill.
Physical Plant: If both man and woman are
from Physical Plant, they are very hungry,
but find that it is not the right time to
(h)eat. Therefore, they don’t order any-
thing and starve.
United Nations: If the two are Kofi Annan
and Madeleine Albright, Madeleine
Albright will promise to pay the bill, but
the U.S. Congress will not allow her to al-
locate the money.
UMass Republican: If the two are from the
UMass Republican Club, they won’t worry
too much about paying, because the SGA
will pay the bill.
Chancellor: If the man is Chancellor Scott,
he won’t be able to pay the bill, because he
spends most of his money striving for ex-
cellence. In order to feel safe, he will install
cameras all over the restaurant and employ
students to check everyone who enters.
TV or not to be: If the two have watched too
much TV, they won’t understand the check
.
 THE WORLD
10 May 2000 T H E G R A D U A T E V O I C E 5

In 1996, the United States imported

$36.39 billion worth of clothing from 75
countries. The map on the left displays
the number of years that one average gar-
ment worker on each country would have
had to work—24 hours a day, 366 days a
(leap) year—to produce her country’s
share of the total on her own. For each
country, the number was calculated by di-
viding the total amount of its apparel
exports to the U.S. (in dollars) by the av-
erage hourly salary (in dollars) earned by
its garment workers. A major variable
missing here is the number of people
employed by the clothing industry in each
country. In the case of the U.S., the shad-
ing corresponds to the number of years
that an average garment employee would
have to work to produce the total.
An apparel worker in China would
have to work over 1.5 million years to
produce China’s share; at the other end
of the spectrum, an apparel worker in
Algeria would produce her country’s share
in only 23 days. This reflects the fact that
the U.S. imported only $631 in clothes
from Algeria that year, and is not the re-
sult of high wages—although, at $1.14
an hour, they are almost ten times larger
than the 13 cents that garment workers
get paid on average in Myanmar.
Hong Kong (still independent in
1996), China, and Mexico were the larg-
est exporters; the three of them combined
produced one-third of the U.S.’s imports.
They respectively paid their workers
$4.51, 28 cents, and $1.08, just like one
would think. The map shows other well-
known trends: “black” countries, notably
in Asia, tend to be major exporters and
exploiters, while the “light” countries tend
to be in Europe.
More than 100,000 years In closing, we should note that Gap
CEO Millard Drexler earned $24,000 an
Between 10,000 and 100,000 years
hour in 1998, more than 1000 times the
Between 1000 and 10,000 years hourly salary ($20.78) earned by garment
workers in Denmark.
Less than 1000 years SOURCES: American Apparel Manufactur-
ers Association, Major Shippers Report, 1997;
Werner International, Inc., Hourly Labor Costs
in the Apparel Industry, 1997; Global Ex-
change.

How would you feel?

Reflections on terrorism, guilt, and justice
by Kevin Costa, Department of Political Science
FALL RIVER—Is it possible to find it in one’s
interest to plead guilty when one is innocent?
How about when you are given a citation for
speeding in a community far from home, but
you decide not to contest the ticket—even
though you are innocent—because the hear-
ing is at a great distance and a day lost at work
costs more than the ticket itself.
Now, how would you feel if 20 years later,
the ticket paid and the whole affair forgot-
ten, a new law is passed that makes a
conviction for speeding a one-hundred-thou-
sand-dollar violation that is twenty years
retroactively effective? How would you feel if
this new law were not only retroactive, but
also to be administered by a bureaucracy that
is not to be held accountable to our courts?
How would you feel if you had no right to an
attorney’s representation and no right to ap-
peal? How would you feel?
Given that juries are unpredictable and dis-
trict attorneys throw the book at anyone who
demands a jury trial, the vast majority of con-
victions in our legal system derive from plea
bargains. If someone is not fully confident that
she is able to prove her innocence to what are
at times fickle juries, such innocence is be-
sides the point: the defendant faces the choice
of either accepting a plea bargain of guilty to
lesser charges that would allow her freedom
or demanding a jury trial and facing the very
real possibility of jail time.
(The horrors of such jail time cannot be
described in their stark truth without offend-
ing readers’ sensibilities.)
Now, how does this person feel if 20 years
after being given a one-year suspended sen-
tence—which means that not a day of jail time
is meant to be served—and assuming the
matter to have been cleared up, a new law is
passed that deports a non-citizen convicted
of a crime in which the sentence is at least
one year, even if the sentence is suspended,
and the law is made retroactive?
How does she feel to find out that this new
law is not only retroactive, but also to be ad-
ministered by an Immigration and
Naturalization Service that is not to be held
accountable to our courts? To be deported
from the only land and the only people she
loves, the only land and the only people she
could love because they are the only land and
the only people she has ever truly known—
how would she feel? How would you feel?
In the battle against evil the greatest dan-
ger is that of using the evil of one’s enemy as a
rationalization for abolishing one’s own
scruples and taking on the means of the evil
one faces. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act was passed in 1996 as a
reaction against the Oklahoma City bomb-
ing. The bomber Timothy McVeigh is now
listed as an honored prisoner of war on Neo-
Nazi and KKK websites that are only a couple
of clicks away from the mainstream.
Xenophobic Timothy McVeigh would find
much to approve of in this Anti-Terrorism
Act—a more accurate designation would be
Terrorism Victory Act—that resulted from the
unthinking reaction to his action.
Those who are just understand that jus-
tice is, of necessity, of one piece, and that to
deny justice to someone else is ultimately to
deny justice to oneself. Those who are just,
after reflection, understand that the threat to
due process that this “Terrorism Victory Act”
represents can only serve the interests of tyr-
anny. I ask those who are just to be vigilant
and to raise their voices in protest against this
threat to the liberties we hold in common.
 CLASSICS
6 T H E G R A D U A T E V O I C E 10 May 2000

With the
ing
ipl
d K .

Night Mail
D
A.

(extracts from the magazine

Ru 00
ar

in which it appeared)
dy
by f 20
y o
tor
a s
 L E I S U R E
10 May 2000 T H E G R A D U A T E V O I C E 7

Backgammon by Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, Ph.D.

The right move: “Vogue” magazine,

an IBM program, and Cooke’s #120
Although not as popular as among chess players, quizzes have entertained and
intrigued backgammon aficionados as well. Debates about the right move are
always vigorous and heated, and this is not surprising: as Lewis Deyong, a
1970s backgammon figure, noted—as a result of personal experience, no
doubt—there are plenty of inflated egos throughout the world of backgammon.
Good luck with the two classics that follow.
1) Even among experts, there are only a 2) Barclay Cooke was an interesting con-
few positions for which the right move is tender in the backgammon scene of the late
agreed upon. In general, there is agreement 1970s. A Renaissance man with an English
on how to play the first roll of dice. Until literature degree from Yale University, Cooke
about 1995, it was thought utterly naïve of did manual labor in the Southern United
the White player in the figure below not to States, traveled extensively while gambling,
play a roll of 4 – 1 as 13 – 9, 6 – 5 (i.e., mov- and finally settled down in Englewood, New
ing one man from point 13 to point 9 and Jersey. He was devoted to classical music, but
one man from point 6 to point 5). The intu- much more to his three Bs: baseball, back-
ition behind this move is that it prepares the gammon and bridge. While today many
ground for White to make the point 5 in her players regard his play as hopelessly old-fash-
next roll and that this may seriously constrain ioned, it appears that Cooke was esteemed
Black’s men in White’s home board (points 1 among his peers some 25 years ago. His style
– 6). Additionally, even if the man in point 5 of writing may be pretentious, but it is very
is hit by Black—an event that can be shown elegant. The Cruelest Game, a book he co-
to have a probability of only around 35%!— authored with John Bradshaw, was a success.
there is still plenty of time for White to make In 1978, Cooke published Paradoxes and Prob-
up the lost ground. John Longacre, author of abilities, a book with 168 (!) backgammon
Backgammon of Today—a book worth buying quizzes. Quiz #120 is featured in the front
just for the pretty ink drawings, originally cover; Cooke claimed that no player in the
published in 1930 and reprinted by Vogue world, under time pressure, would ever make
magazine in 1973—might have been the first the right move. A blurb by Hunter Goodrich
person that proposed this move. hyped #120 further: “it is, alone, worth the
The human experts might have agreed on price of the book.” Here it is then, the much-
how to play the opening 4 – 1, but a com- discussed #120.
puter program designed in upstate New York
by IBM had a mind of its own. Professor Ri- Quiz: How do you think White should play
chard Dreyffus of the University of California 1 – 1?
at Berkeley, having long been a proponent of
the view that there are things that humans can 123
13 14123
123 123 123
19 20 123
21 22 123
123 123
123 123 123
123 123
123 123
15 16 17 18 23 24
and will always do better than computers, would 123 123
123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123
have been pleased with the initial, unani-
123
123 123 123
123 123 123
123 123 123
123 123
mously negative reactions to the move 123 123 123 123 123 123
123
123 123 123 123 123 123
123 123 123
123 123
123 123 123
123
proposed by the computer. But—alas—he
would not have liked what came later. Since 123 123
1995, agreement between human experts and
BAR

the computer program has been restored, and

guess which party conformed. 123
123 123
123 12
12 123
123 123
123 123
123
123
123 123
123 12
12 123
123 123
123 123
123
Quiz: What do you think is the move pro- 123
123 123
123 12
12 123
123 123
123 123
123
posed by IBM’s computer program? 123
123 123
123 12
12 123
123 123
123 123
123
123
123 123
123 12
12 123
123 123
123 123
123
123 123 123 12 123 123 123
13 14 123
15 16123 123
19 20 123
21 22123
123 123 123
17 18
123 123 123
23 24 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
123 123
123 123 123 123 123 123
123 123 123 123
123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123
123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 the IBM computer would think of this.
123
123 123 123
123 123 123
123 123 123
123 123 more time. It would be curious to see what
123 123 123 123 123 123 point 2 and keep Black in the bar for some
not have the chance to use him later to make
BAR

the man in her point 7 to her point 1 and will

123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123
Why? Because then White is forced to move
123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123
the second option is worse than the third.
123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 follows: if White rolls sixes, 6 – 1, or 6 – 2,
123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 most important of these arguments runs as
123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123 123
123
123 123 123 123 123 123
third option is the superior one. Perhaps the
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ing probability theory, to demonstrate that the
of quite involved analytic arguments, invok-
decide, see also the answer to the second quiz. Cooke goes on a roll and develops a number
Professor Dreyffus wrong? To help yourself However, this is a question for A+ students.
run, but the computer can! Does that prove tempt to distribute men equally across points.
pute which move will be superior in the long one should diversify; that is, one should at-
bit. It seems that humans cannot easily com- second option: time and again, experts say that
5 point in her next roll is decreased by quite a good backgammon student would go for the
is that White’s probability of making her Apparently, Cooke likes this quiz because a
to her home board. The downside of this move from Black’s home board (points 19 – 24).
home board and also hinders Black’s entrance creases the probability of this man’s escaping
own probability of getting stuck in Black’s it can be shown that this move actually de-
greatly increased. Thus, White decreases her White’s point 6. The first option is silly, since
(Black’s point 5) in her next roll has now to White’s point 5, and (iii) move a man to
ability of White making point 20 to point 23 (Black’s point 2), (ii) move a man
man to point 5 is eliminated, while the prob- tions for the remaining ace: (i) move the man
good idea, notice that the risk of bringing a Then, Cooke continues, there are three op-
remains the same. To see why 24 – 23 is a man from White’s point 4 to her point 1.
The rationale for the 13 – 9 part of the move out of the four aces should be used to move a
Answer: The unexpected: 13 – 9, 24 – 23! Answer: Cooke begins by arguing that three
 ================================================

8
FREE ON-CAMPUS
SUBSCRIPTIONS!
WRITERS, ARTISTS:
GET PUBLISHED!
ADVERTISE
FOR
T H EFREE!
G R A D U A T E V O I C E
Ivana Kurian 10 May 2000
presents an installation with electronic still images:
================================================
| T H E G R A D U A T E | “INTIMACY”
| @@ @@ @@@@ @@@@@@ @@@@ @@@@@@ |
| @@ @@ @@ @ @@ @@ @ @@ | MAY 8–12
| @@ @@ @@ @ @@ @@ @@ |
AUGUSTA SAVAGE GALLERY
| @@ @@ @@ @ @@ @@ @@@@ | 101 New Africa House, UMass
| @@ @@ @@ @ @@ @@ @@ | Free admission
| @@@ @@ @ @@ @@ @ @@ |
| @ @@@@ @@@@@@ @@@@ @@@@@@ |
================================================
* PUBLISH IN THE "VOICE" :
We are looking for your articles and artwork.
Local and world news, research and analysis,
views and opinions, satire: all are welcome.
Is there anything that you would like to see
in the "Voice"? We need and want your input!
* SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE :
Just send us your name and on-campus mailing
address to get the "Voice" delivered to your
mailbox, free of charge.
* PLACE ADS FOR FREE :
Non-profit organizations, communities, events:
if you need to tell graduate students about
what you do, count on the "Voice" for help.
================================================
SEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO jpf@physics.umass.edu
================================================

Theater and film The Department of Theater presented two major productions
this Spring: Wole Soyinka’s version of Euripides’s “The Bacchae” (above) and
Heiner Müller’s “Hamlet Machine” (left). Both plays are brave and gleeful at-
tacks on timeless classics that may well become classics themselves; both casts,
in their turn, bravely and gleefully attacked the texts. The Distinguished Visitors
Program brought us Kevin Smith (below, to the left of buddy Quentin Tarantino),
director of “Clerks” and “Chasing Amy.”

SOMETIMES WHILE I SHAVE I LOOK

AT THE MIRROR AND SAY TO
MYSELF: “YOU’RE EVIL.” AND YES, I’M
EVIL; BUT I’M A NECESSARY EVIL.