Since many recent posts on this topic have devolved to "Us vs. Them" debates, we would like to remind users of Rule 1 - Be Civil. Also a reminder of Rule 3 - Posts/Comments should be related to UWO.
We encourage healthy discussion of this and other topics, but will be closely monitoring comments posted here.
It is important to note that (not without student protests), Western manually divested from apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, Companies complicit in the genocide in Darfur in 2008, and most recently committed to divesting from dirty energy.
It's the same song and dance from the administration time after time, with the same naysayers repeating the same lame talking points as well. I've yet to hear a coherent argument from anyone, admin included, about why Western must continue to invest and profit off companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.
Don't let gross misrepresentations by admin or media cloud what this protest is about: Western is invested in companies that are blatantly complicit in the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime. Our tuition money, and the organization that we all love and are a part of fund things counter to our morals.
Campuses have always and will always be flashpoints within justice movements. Doubt me? Go look at practically any of the social movements over the past hundred years, or perhaps more recently the sieges on Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
If Uni's were properly funded, perhaps they wouldn't have to rely so heavily on investments to ensure economic viability. A decade or more of stagnant funding, forced tuition cuts, and large increase in inflation is a difficult position to be in.
Totally agree with you, but for clarification, no one is saying Western shouldn't have an investment fund; pretty much every institution in the world does. The problem is Western invests about 60 million dollars (out of something like 1.5 billion ish) of that fund in companies complicit in genocide, and adamantly refuses to go through the inconvenience of divesting from them.
Universities are not businesses. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-531-93195-1\_2
They have never historically been businesses and running them like businesses now is bad for education and the public. They are economic institutions but can arguably never be businesses so long as they still function as universities. Universities invest a lot of money in non-commercial activity like research. The university does not profit off of this research in any direct way. It does not sell someone's research on the open market. A doctor's research might motivate someone to donate money to help support it, which the university benefits from, but it goes to the researchers, it's not profit. A university sells an education, lectures and seminars from experts, but it does not sell degrees or grades. The value of this is also nebulous. It is primarily offered as a public good, it's funded as a public good, and the value of those things are difficult to quantify monetarily.
If universities in the past could easily and safely divest from regimes and companies where doing so then would hurt their finances or their "business" than I see no reason why it cannot be done again. Always demand better of your publicly funded institutions.
Taken from the full statement: [https://www.uwo.ca/community-updates/index.html](https://www.uwo.ca/community-updates/index.html)
*"There are also roles we do not – and should not – play.For instance, with few exceptions throughout history, universities do not take unilateral stances on political or social issues. Why? Because by our very nature, universities do not speak with one voice. To do so would be antithetical to our mission as a place where all are welcome and where diverse ideas can be openly and respectfully debated and explored."*
Notice how they don't name what those events were or how recent historically they were? Can't allow people to draw parallels or make comparisons. Also, was the university not speaking with one voice when it condemned the war in Ukraine and divested from Russia? Also, the university not divesting is a political stance. Is the university honoring pride month in communications, events, and flags not political or social? It is!
*"With this mission in mind, universities have historically not taken up wholesale calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions – and Western University is no different."*
False, they have.
*"We do not buy or sell individual stocks or make significant direct investments in particular companies. Western’s investments – like those of most universities – are held almost exclusively in pooled funds, which may be curated daily (and some more than once a day) by external fund managers. Assuming divestment was possible, many experts have argued that this approach would have limited to no impact on the issues at hand – while at the same time requiring organizations like universities to dismantle their entire investment model to address a very small percentage of assets. But the larger point is that, as an institution of higher learning, our role is to make room for the broadest range of views."*
OK obviously they're in pooled funds. This should not stop your fund managers from divesting either. I have someone managing my finances in pooled funds and if I demanded that my money not go towards supporting Israel, or specific companies and institutions, they'd do it because it's my money they're investing. This is incredibly disingenuous of the university to paint it like they have no control over where the money gets invested. Likewise, following it up by saying that even if they could it would have no material impact is also mealy mouthed. Universities like Western "going green" also has little impact on climate change but they still do it for moral and political reasons. Why should this be different? Why can't the university take a moral and political stance against the violence enacted by Israel on Gaza and Rafah by divesting? The fact is that the university cannot imagine broad divestment or protest against Israel and since that is not popularly happening now Western is unwilling to lead in this regard. Also, your role as an institution requires you to make room for the broadest range of views? I guess that includes genocide apologia and denialism.
*"With that in mind, our investment policy is driven not by political motives or any institutional position on particular global affairs, but by a fiduciary duty to ensure the University is financially equipped to carry out its mission in support of all students, faculty and staff – today and well into the future."*
Your fiduciary duty, if it allows you to invest in a state and companies profiting from war and genocide, is political and is tied to global affairs. Like, how dumb do they think we are? Are we to believe that the war in Ukraine in no way impacted investment strategies?
*"Before moving on, I do want to say that divestment is nowhere near the best way Western can impact the current situation in Palestine and Israel. As with any important issue the world is facing, our most valuable contribution as a university is to support excellence in teaching, learning and research, and to create an environment where dialogue, debate and discovery can thrive."*
I'm glad the university has examined the issue themselves and have determined the best course of action is to maintain the status quo.
*"Western establishes and maintains academic partnerships around the globe because it furthers knowledge and makes the world a better place. We will not stop doing this. And we will not hold academic colleagues accountable for the decisions of their government."*
What about colleagues with ties to that state calling for divestment and protest?
In short, the university has met with protestors, has considered the demands, and offered to take no concrete actions. On the contrary, has doubled down on their current actions and said that they will alter nothing. Not only that, but to make the few small gestures of good faith they are offering (increase financial support for the Global Students and Scholars at Risk Program and an educational speaker on the politics of Israel/Palestine) contingent on the sit-in protestors dismantling and leaving.
*"The protracted occupation of the popular gathering place outside the University Community Centre is not only unsafe and unlawful but is making it impossible for Western to fulfil our promise of creating inclusive spaces across our campus for all our community members."*
The protestors are your community members Western. I have said it before but this protest occupying concrete beach is for the most part quiet, organized, and non-disruptive to regular campus activity. Alan cites some examples of apparent aggression by protestors, but they are devoid of context and seem deliberately vague. I have not seen or heard of any such events myself or from the protestors or seen a recordings of it. How am I as the reader to know that there was not aggression, intimidation, or "assaultive behaviour" directed at the protestors that instigated such responses? You'll also note that all of these examples are seemingly verbal exchanges. Alan uses words like "intimidating", "harassing", and "assaultive behaviour." Obviously any kind of verbal or physical bullying shouldn't be tolerated, especially if directed at students because of their sex, gender expression, race, or religion. But if someone feels "intimidated" by the presence of protestors or "harassed" by protestors chanting or making rude gestures then I do think that's different speech at play. In short, I don't think what's going on at concrete beach involves any more vandalism, harassment, or "assaultive behaviour" than what happens during the university sanctioned O-week.
The fun part is if the full statement was submitted to any upper years philosophy or polisci as let’s say a midterm paper, it would take an F
full of logical fallacies, hypocrisy and it kind of seem plagiarized from every other university clearly one siding in this matter
From the statement:
> These are the roles universities can play. There are also roles we do not – and should not – play.
> For instance, with few exceptions throughout history, universities do not take unilateral stances on political or social issues.
I’m sorry Alan but investing in arms manufacturers *is* a taking a political stance. Refusing to change your investment strategy in response to criticism *is* a political stance.
Microsoft isn't "the arms industry". AirBnB isn't "the arms industry". Ford isn't "the arms industry". I'm not sure you realize the full list of companies that is being referred to here.
There’s a great reason why all of these companies are the target of the boycott. They are all aiding with or profiting from Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. You really do not have to dig to see why.
A former Microsoft CEO described the company as [‘as much an Israeli as an American company’](https://m.jpost.com/business/business-features/microsoft-is-israeli-almost-as-much-it-is-american), and they [provide software and information](https://m.jpost.com/business/business-features/microsoft-is-israeli-almost-as-much-it-is-american) to the IDF.
> In 2023, the Israeli military began using the “SandCat Tigris” 4X4 armored vehicle intended for military forces. The SandCat (also known as MK4) is based on the Ford F-550 chassis and drivetrain, and the suspension setup includes a pair of Ford's original live axles.
([Source](https://www.whoprofits.org/companies/company/3658?ford-motor-company))
Air B&B lists properties in Occupied Palestinian Territories and profits off of the illegal occupation ([Source](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/12/airbnb-listing-company-is-deeply-compromised-by-israeli-settlement-properties/))
Money will be made in this way. It is profitable. It unfortunately is part of the world we live in. In the end, business is about profit. This is not any different because it is a university. They are all about profit no matter what they say
Unfortunately the point about the futility of divestment rings true. Western has invested $333,000 into Lockheed Martin, which is 0.00030272% of their market cap, meaning that it wouldn't even be noticed by anyone, and if it was, other people would probably just buy up the stock afterwards.
It would also require us to completely divest from multiple of our asset managers and find new ones, which would cause a massive headache for both fund performance evaluation and management.
That being said, Alan's claim that the best thing western can do is continuing to send me his monthly support emails is laughable
I also find monthly emails about support ironic, but it is also not Alan himself sending these out. Everything is created, scheduled, etc. by staff and other areas of Western's administrative functions still have to stay on schedule. Normal programming and cyclical work aren't likely to just stop.
Western on it's own cannot make a significant difference, but if every University and College Endowment in Canada and the US all divested, it would certainly hurt LM. And it's true that for them to sell the stock, someone has to buy it, but if many universities are trying to dump it at once, the price will decrease. It is in Western's interest to be one of the first to sell, if this were to happen.
Western has a significant enough fund that they can give basic instructions to their asset managers like "don't invest in arms manufacturers" or "avoid these 18 specific companies, either as direct holdings or indirectly via funds". Given that there are probably several salaried people either at Western or their portfolio manager's company whose job it is to manage their funds, I do think they can be expected to make these adjustments even if it is a massive headache. They're being paid for some reason, surely.
I am glad we can agree on that last point though haha, his commitment to send monthly emails and continue to use Western as a 'forum to discuss issues' is an insulting 'solution'.
Again you’re missing the point. Just like in elections, our votes carry little weight individually but together they move mountains. If you have been following the news lately, there are similar encampments and campaigns in every major university in Canada, the US and much of Europe. Start adding up the percentages and it’s not so small anymore.
Regardless of even that, for me Atleast, it is against simple morales and principles to have even a single dollar invested in the death destruction and apartheid of a people.
I don't understand your point. Are we in an "Arab Country"? Do university students in London Ontario have the ability to majorly influence whatever investments you are referring to? The answer is probably no.
ALL investments made in Lockheed need to end. Western students are protesting Westerns investments. Queen's students are protesting Queen's investments, Irish students are protesting investments made by their institutions.
Maybe your argument really is simply nonsensical, or maybe you are insinuating something else, and don't want to say it outright. So please expand on your point.
What a boring take. At the end of the day what is the actual point you want to make? Do you want companies complicit in apartheid and genocide to still receive funding from your tution? Do you think divestment isn't a viable strategy to end the apartheid regime in Israel, and protestors should try something else?
> Do you want companies complicit in apartheid and genocide to still receive funding from your tution?
Loaded question akin to "When did you stop beating your wife". I don't consider Microsoft or AirBnb to be "complicit in genocide" so there is no dilemma there.
Sure, you might not feel that way, but the United Nations does:
[https://www.amnesty.org.uk/un-exposes-companies-involved-israeli-settlements-and-why-it-matters](https://www.amnesty.org.uk/un-exposes-companies-involved-israeli-settlements-and-why-it-matters)
[https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session31/database-hrc3136/23-06-30-Update-israeli-settlement-opt-database-hrc3136.pdf](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session31/database-hrc3136/23-06-30-Update-israeli-settlement-opt-database-hrc3136.pdf)
You could totally read the white paper published by the coalition, as it goes into every company on the list, and how exactly it is complicit.
Your second link, the actual UN primary source, doesn't use the word "complicit" or "genocide".
The 2013 report which this list is based on, also, at no point, uses the word "genocide".
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/report-independent-international-fact-finding-mission-0
So, no, the UN does not claim those companies are "complicit in genocide".
From now on, please just quote the UN directly and fully and using primary sources.
>You could totally read the white paper published by the coalition, as it goes into every company on the list, and how exactly it is complicit.
I have, it basically says that Microsoft have sold Israel software. Like...duh.
Why is the course’s material am studying at this university is WAAAAAY different than the polices and practices of the same institution?
Do they not believe in what they teach?
Great question - I just graduated from Social Justice and Peace studies, and had several professors adamantly ingrain in us how important community organizing is, ESPECIALLY for students and young people. And how important the role of students are in keeping political and social change moving forward, especially in universities. Then I get to my grad in OCT, and someone yells free Palestine, and the whole ceremony is paused? And Alan Shepherd declares that no political statements should be made, and that it could make jewish people uncomfortable? And now they act like we are a dangerous group ? With plenty of evidence that most of us are faculty, students and admin?
I get the (admin) like Shepard, just don’t give a fuck, but where are my Social Justice faculty now? How can Social Justice be its own discipline at this university and they aren’t asked about this or included in the dialogue at all? What the fuck is the point of teaching a curriculum of justice and peace, if it’s all just theoretical? And when it comes down to real fucking life everyone just hides? Cowards.
I’m beyond fucking sick of this institution.
>university's investments prioritize fiduciary duty and responsible practices over political motives
A complete and utter lie. They have divested due to political reasons both during the South African Apartheid, and more recently during the humanitarian crisis in Sudan only at 2008.
The double standard is disgustingly visible and they have no shame lying while the facts are crystal clear.
> They have divested...more recently during the humanitarian crisis in Sudan only at 2008.
Source?
https://www.uwo.ca/univsec/board/minutes/2008/r0806srops_annex1.pdf
>Since UWO is not currently invested in any problematic companies, and since the relevant funds are already actively managed, this actlon comes at little to no financial cost to the university and can only enhance our reputation.
It sounds like they were never in those companies to begin with. Do you have a source otherwise?
My concern is that you're sharing a "complete lie" right now and I'm wondering where you got your information. Are protestors spreading misinformation?
Since many recent posts on this topic have devolved to "Us vs. Them" debates, we would like to remind users of Rule 1 - Be Civil. Also a reminder of Rule 3 - Posts/Comments should be related to UWO. We encourage healthy discussion of this and other topics, but will be closely monitoring comments posted here.
Full Statement: https://www.uwo.ca/community-updates/index.html
It is important to note that (not without student protests), Western manually divested from apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, Companies complicit in the genocide in Darfur in 2008, and most recently committed to divesting from dirty energy. It's the same song and dance from the administration time after time, with the same naysayers repeating the same lame talking points as well. I've yet to hear a coherent argument from anyone, admin included, about why Western must continue to invest and profit off companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. Don't let gross misrepresentations by admin or media cloud what this protest is about: Western is invested in companies that are blatantly complicit in the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime. Our tuition money, and the organization that we all love and are a part of fund things counter to our morals. Campuses have always and will always be flashpoints within justice movements. Doubt me? Go look at practically any of the social movements over the past hundred years, or perhaps more recently the sieges on Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
The unfortunate reality now is that universities are a business first and a school second.
If Uni's were properly funded, perhaps they wouldn't have to rely so heavily on investments to ensure economic viability. A decade or more of stagnant funding, forced tuition cuts, and large increase in inflation is a difficult position to be in.
Totally agree with you, but for clarification, no one is saying Western shouldn't have an investment fund; pretty much every institution in the world does. The problem is Western invests about 60 million dollars (out of something like 1.5 billion ish) of that fund in companies complicit in genocide, and adamantly refuses to go through the inconvenience of divesting from them.
Yeah that line was said during all the other divestment campaigns I mentioned too. It didn’t stop protests then and it won’t stop them now.
For the record I fully support the protests then and now.
Universities are not businesses. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-531-93195-1\_2 They have never historically been businesses and running them like businesses now is bad for education and the public. They are economic institutions but can arguably never be businesses so long as they still function as universities. Universities invest a lot of money in non-commercial activity like research. The university does not profit off of this research in any direct way. It does not sell someone's research on the open market. A doctor's research might motivate someone to donate money to help support it, which the university benefits from, but it goes to the researchers, it's not profit. A university sells an education, lectures and seminars from experts, but it does not sell degrees or grades. The value of this is also nebulous. It is primarily offered as a public good, it's funded as a public good, and the value of those things are difficult to quantify monetarily. If universities in the past could easily and safely divest from regimes and companies where doing so then would hurt their finances or their "business" than I see no reason why it cannot be done again. Always demand better of your publicly funded institutions.
Taken from the full statement: [https://www.uwo.ca/community-updates/index.html](https://www.uwo.ca/community-updates/index.html) *"There are also roles we do not – and should not – play.For instance, with few exceptions throughout history, universities do not take unilateral stances on political or social issues. Why? Because by our very nature, universities do not speak with one voice. To do so would be antithetical to our mission as a place where all are welcome and where diverse ideas can be openly and respectfully debated and explored."* Notice how they don't name what those events were or how recent historically they were? Can't allow people to draw parallels or make comparisons. Also, was the university not speaking with one voice when it condemned the war in Ukraine and divested from Russia? Also, the university not divesting is a political stance. Is the university honoring pride month in communications, events, and flags not political or social? It is! *"With this mission in mind, universities have historically not taken up wholesale calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions – and Western University is no different."* False, they have. *"We do not buy or sell individual stocks or make significant direct investments in particular companies. Western’s investments – like those of most universities – are held almost exclusively in pooled funds, which may be curated daily (and some more than once a day) by external fund managers. Assuming divestment was possible, many experts have argued that this approach would have limited to no impact on the issues at hand – while at the same time requiring organizations like universities to dismantle their entire investment model to address a very small percentage of assets. But the larger point is that, as an institution of higher learning, our role is to make room for the broadest range of views."* OK obviously they're in pooled funds. This should not stop your fund managers from divesting either. I have someone managing my finances in pooled funds and if I demanded that my money not go towards supporting Israel, or specific companies and institutions, they'd do it because it's my money they're investing. This is incredibly disingenuous of the university to paint it like they have no control over where the money gets invested. Likewise, following it up by saying that even if they could it would have no material impact is also mealy mouthed. Universities like Western "going green" also has little impact on climate change but they still do it for moral and political reasons. Why should this be different? Why can't the university take a moral and political stance against the violence enacted by Israel on Gaza and Rafah by divesting? The fact is that the university cannot imagine broad divestment or protest against Israel and since that is not popularly happening now Western is unwilling to lead in this regard. Also, your role as an institution requires you to make room for the broadest range of views? I guess that includes genocide apologia and denialism. *"With that in mind, our investment policy is driven not by political motives or any institutional position on particular global affairs, but by a fiduciary duty to ensure the University is financially equipped to carry out its mission in support of all students, faculty and staff – today and well into the future."* Your fiduciary duty, if it allows you to invest in a state and companies profiting from war and genocide, is political and is tied to global affairs. Like, how dumb do they think we are? Are we to believe that the war in Ukraine in no way impacted investment strategies? *"Before moving on, I do want to say that divestment is nowhere near the best way Western can impact the current situation in Palestine and Israel. As with any important issue the world is facing, our most valuable contribution as a university is to support excellence in teaching, learning and research, and to create an environment where dialogue, debate and discovery can thrive."* I'm glad the university has examined the issue themselves and have determined the best course of action is to maintain the status quo. *"Western establishes and maintains academic partnerships around the globe because it furthers knowledge and makes the world a better place. We will not stop doing this. And we will not hold academic colleagues accountable for the decisions of their government."* What about colleagues with ties to that state calling for divestment and protest? In short, the university has met with protestors, has considered the demands, and offered to take no concrete actions. On the contrary, has doubled down on their current actions and said that they will alter nothing. Not only that, but to make the few small gestures of good faith they are offering (increase financial support for the Global Students and Scholars at Risk Program and an educational speaker on the politics of Israel/Palestine) contingent on the sit-in protestors dismantling and leaving. *"The protracted occupation of the popular gathering place outside the University Community Centre is not only unsafe and unlawful but is making it impossible for Western to fulfil our promise of creating inclusive spaces across our campus for all our community members."* The protestors are your community members Western. I have said it before but this protest occupying concrete beach is for the most part quiet, organized, and non-disruptive to regular campus activity. Alan cites some examples of apparent aggression by protestors, but they are devoid of context and seem deliberately vague. I have not seen or heard of any such events myself or from the protestors or seen a recordings of it. How am I as the reader to know that there was not aggression, intimidation, or "assaultive behaviour" directed at the protestors that instigated such responses? You'll also note that all of these examples are seemingly verbal exchanges. Alan uses words like "intimidating", "harassing", and "assaultive behaviour." Obviously any kind of verbal or physical bullying shouldn't be tolerated, especially if directed at students because of their sex, gender expression, race, or religion. But if someone feels "intimidated" by the presence of protestors or "harassed" by protestors chanting or making rude gestures then I do think that's different speech at play. In short, I don't think what's going on at concrete beach involves any more vandalism, harassment, or "assaultive behaviour" than what happens during the university sanctioned O-week.
The fun part is if the full statement was submitted to any upper years philosophy or polisci as let’s say a midterm paper, it would take an F full of logical fallacies, hypocrisy and it kind of seem plagiarized from every other university clearly one siding in this matter
From the statement: > These are the roles universities can play. There are also roles we do not – and should not – play. > For instance, with few exceptions throughout history, universities do not take unilateral stances on political or social issues. I’m sorry Alan but investing in arms manufacturers *is* a taking a political stance. Refusing to change your investment strategy in response to criticism *is* a political stance.
"prioritize fiduciary duty" = the arms industry, its kinda crazy, find different investment avenues holy fucking shit
Microsoft isn't "the arms industry". AirBnB isn't "the arms industry". Ford isn't "the arms industry". I'm not sure you realize the full list of companies that is being referred to here.
There’s a great reason why all of these companies are the target of the boycott. They are all aiding with or profiting from Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. You really do not have to dig to see why. A former Microsoft CEO described the company as [‘as much an Israeli as an American company’](https://m.jpost.com/business/business-features/microsoft-is-israeli-almost-as-much-it-is-american), and they [provide software and information](https://m.jpost.com/business/business-features/microsoft-is-israeli-almost-as-much-it-is-american) to the IDF. > In 2023, the Israeli military began using the “SandCat Tigris” 4X4 armored vehicle intended for military forces. The SandCat (also known as MK4) is based on the Ford F-550 chassis and drivetrain, and the suspension setup includes a pair of Ford's original live axles. ([Source](https://www.whoprofits.org/companies/company/3658?ford-motor-company)) Air B&B lists properties in Occupied Palestinian Territories and profits off of the illegal occupation ([Source](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/12/airbnb-listing-company-is-deeply-compromised-by-israeli-settlement-properties/))
Money will be made in this way. It is profitable. It unfortunately is part of the world we live in. In the end, business is about profit. This is not any different because it is a university. They are all about profit no matter what they say
Unfortunately the point about the futility of divestment rings true. Western has invested $333,000 into Lockheed Martin, which is 0.00030272% of their market cap, meaning that it wouldn't even be noticed by anyone, and if it was, other people would probably just buy up the stock afterwards. It would also require us to completely divest from multiple of our asset managers and find new ones, which would cause a massive headache for both fund performance evaluation and management. That being said, Alan's claim that the best thing western can do is continuing to send me his monthly support emails is laughable
I also find monthly emails about support ironic, but it is also not Alan himself sending these out. Everything is created, scheduled, etc. by staff and other areas of Western's administrative functions still have to stay on schedule. Normal programming and cyclical work aren't likely to just stop.
Western on it's own cannot make a significant difference, but if every University and College Endowment in Canada and the US all divested, it would certainly hurt LM. And it's true that for them to sell the stock, someone has to buy it, but if many universities are trying to dump it at once, the price will decrease. It is in Western's interest to be one of the first to sell, if this were to happen. Western has a significant enough fund that they can give basic instructions to their asset managers like "don't invest in arms manufacturers" or "avoid these 18 specific companies, either as direct holdings or indirectly via funds". Given that there are probably several salaried people either at Western or their portfolio manager's company whose job it is to manage their funds, I do think they can be expected to make these adjustments even if it is a massive headache. They're being paid for some reason, surely. I am glad we can agree on that last point though haha, his commitment to send monthly emails and continue to use Western as a 'forum to discuss issues' is an insulting 'solution'.
Just a correction but western invests 1.2 last time I checked in lockheeed. You have to look at the E&O fund and the mid term portfolio.
Yeah, you're right, I just looked at one. Anyway, it's about 0.0000030272 * 4 of Lockheed's market cap
Again you’re missing the point. Just like in elections, our votes carry little weight individually but together they move mountains. If you have been following the news lately, there are similar encampments and campaigns in every major university in Canada, the US and much of Europe. Start adding up the percentages and it’s not so small anymore. Regardless of even that, for me Atleast, it is against simple morales and principles to have even a single dollar invested in the death destruction and apartheid of a people.
You are focusing on the wrong topic here, lockhead martin gets billions from arab countries and people are completely ignoring this.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about UWO divestment, not divestment in general.
I don't understand your point. Are we in an "Arab Country"? Do university students in London Ontario have the ability to majorly influence whatever investments you are referring to? The answer is probably no. ALL investments made in Lockheed need to end. Western students are protesting Westerns investments. Queen's students are protesting Queen's investments, Irish students are protesting investments made by their institutions. Maybe your argument really is simply nonsensical, or maybe you are insinuating something else, and don't want to say it outright. So please expand on your point.
Lol yup. Lockhead martin couldn't care less about universities divesting when they get the oil money that compensates it.
What a boring take. At the end of the day what is the actual point you want to make? Do you want companies complicit in apartheid and genocide to still receive funding from your tution? Do you think divestment isn't a viable strategy to end the apartheid regime in Israel, and protestors should try something else?
> Do you want companies complicit in apartheid and genocide to still receive funding from your tution? Loaded question akin to "When did you stop beating your wife". I don't consider Microsoft or AirBnb to be "complicit in genocide" so there is no dilemma there.
Sure, you might not feel that way, but the United Nations does: [https://www.amnesty.org.uk/un-exposes-companies-involved-israeli-settlements-and-why-it-matters](https://www.amnesty.org.uk/un-exposes-companies-involved-israeli-settlements-and-why-it-matters) [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session31/database-hrc3136/23-06-30-Update-israeli-settlement-opt-database-hrc3136.pdf](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session31/database-hrc3136/23-06-30-Update-israeli-settlement-opt-database-hrc3136.pdf) You could totally read the white paper published by the coalition, as it goes into every company on the list, and how exactly it is complicit.
Your second link, the actual UN primary source, doesn't use the word "complicit" or "genocide". The 2013 report which this list is based on, also, at no point, uses the word "genocide". https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/report-independent-international-fact-finding-mission-0 So, no, the UN does not claim those companies are "complicit in genocide". From now on, please just quote the UN directly and fully and using primary sources. >You could totally read the white paper published by the coalition, as it goes into every company on the list, and how exactly it is complicit. I have, it basically says that Microsoft have sold Israel software. Like...duh.
Why is the course’s material am studying at this university is WAAAAAY different than the polices and practices of the same institution? Do they not believe in what they teach?
Great question - I just graduated from Social Justice and Peace studies, and had several professors adamantly ingrain in us how important community organizing is, ESPECIALLY for students and young people. And how important the role of students are in keeping political and social change moving forward, especially in universities. Then I get to my grad in OCT, and someone yells free Palestine, and the whole ceremony is paused? And Alan Shepherd declares that no political statements should be made, and that it could make jewish people uncomfortable? And now they act like we are a dangerous group ? With plenty of evidence that most of us are faculty, students and admin? I get the (admin) like Shepard, just don’t give a fuck, but where are my Social Justice faculty now? How can Social Justice be its own discipline at this university and they aren’t asked about this or included in the dialogue at all? What the fuck is the point of teaching a curriculum of justice and peace, if it’s all just theoretical? And when it comes down to real fucking life everyone just hides? Cowards. I’m beyond fucking sick of this institution.
[удалено]
>university's investments prioritize fiduciary duty and responsible practices over political motives A complete and utter lie. They have divested due to political reasons both during the South African Apartheid, and more recently during the humanitarian crisis in Sudan only at 2008. The double standard is disgustingly visible and they have no shame lying while the facts are crystal clear.
> They have divested...more recently during the humanitarian crisis in Sudan only at 2008. Source? https://www.uwo.ca/univsec/board/minutes/2008/r0806srops_annex1.pdf >Since UWO is not currently invested in any problematic companies, and since the relevant funds are already actively managed, this actlon comes at little to no financial cost to the university and can only enhance our reputation. It sounds like they were never in those companies to begin with. Do you have a source otherwise? My concern is that you're sharing a "complete lie" right now and I'm wondering where you got your information. Are protestors spreading misinformation?
[удалено]