Academics: throw down the text-book and hear this call to arms
For most of the students at the University of York, war happens to other people. We encounter it in books, films, and on television. Our lives are not spent shielding from rocket attacks, fearful for the lives of our families and friends.
Furthermore, we do not (yet) live in a police state, where every conversation with tutors or peers is recorded and our lives are put at risk by joining a political party. We are privileged to be able to protest against our university and be answered with words rather than tear gas and rubber bullets, to have a say in how money in our institution is directed, and even to be here in the first place.
We, the students of a freewheeling democracy, may not have much to do with war, but we were indirectly funding it. On Friday, the University Council agreed to end the University pension fund’s continued stake in BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. York currently has £997,342 worth of shareholdings in these companies, but this will no longer be the case in the future. This is excellent news for believers in civil liberties, human rights, proponents of free speech, and our own campaign team who have worked tirelessly for at least two years to see this achieved.
It is about time. A brief glance at BAE’s clients includes such charmers as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, best known for being the world’s worst place to be a woman. BAE also supply fighter planes to Israel, whose IDF were most recently responsible for reducing Gaza to rubble and killing 1,300 Palestinians in the process. The company were also recently accused of giving former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet a suspected £1 million. Pinochet liked to order his torturers to throw boiling water on his detainees, and inflicted electric shocks and beatings on people who were eventually “disappeared”.
Our University should, then, be proud of its reputation as a cornerstone of intellectual freedom with a newly fortified ethical backbone. This policy has been delayed for far too long, but with 2000 signatures it could not be ignored any longer. The speed of implementation should be watched by York’s students, and the companies who will make up the replacement investments vigorously assessed.
Our students may have achieved a rigorous ethical framework, so what about our academics? The work of the Applied Centre of Human Rights and Post-war Reconstruction and Development Unit, the latter of which will be ironically aiding in the rebuilding of Gaza, represent a set of scholars who uphold York’s commitment to social equality. We also have Dr Simon Parker, targeted by a neo-fascist website for joining a demonstration, and Professor Derek Attridge, Dr Anna Bernard, Mr Geoffrey Wall (English), and Professors Allison Drew and David Howell (Politics), who all signed an open letter to the Guardian calling for an end to violence in Gaza in January.
Baroness Haleh Afshar, also of the Politics department, is well known for her defence of human rights and work in the Department of Women’s Studies.
These academics are part of the solution to what has been addr -essed on Friday, but they are indirectly implicated in a separate but releated problem. The University of York’s pension fund may well be corrected in the future, but it does not apply to anyone on what is known as Pay Grade 6 – academics. Their pensions come from a separate, centrally awarded body called the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS). Guess who invested £164.4 million in BAE Systems last year? It is a joke, but not a very funny one.
The issue of the USS is a new fight, and one that students and academics should be undertaking together. We can congratulate ourselves on ridding the University of York of BAE Systems, but the casebook is by no means closed.
A university is not its lecturers or its students; it is the effective relationship between the two. The French novelist Albert Camus said, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners”. Only when we take this relationship between thinking people beyond the seminar room and the lecture hall, and into a progressive, collaborative way of thinking will we be able to tell ourselves: we are not on the side of the executioners.
Loading ...
Jenny,
you’ve totally misunderstood what happened on Friday. University Council does not, and indeed cannot, control the pension fund. Its Board of Trustees are responsible for making any decisions regarding pension fund investments, and are not bound by the Ethical Investment Policy.
What Council did decide was to adopt the Ethical Investment Policy for its investments, and to make the trustees of the pension fund aware of this new policy. It’s now up to them whether or not to act on it.
This is a really important distinction, so can we please ensure the correct information is being disseminated. Thanks.
What an absolute load of rubbish. BAE and RR employ thousands of people in the UK (which in turn support communities such as Preston, Barrow and Glasgow), contrubute to manufacturing excellence and above all provide excellent support to our armed services.
The majority of people are sick and tired of hearing whinging from wishy-washy namby pamby Guardian reading liberals like yourself slagging off companies like RR and BAE. Companies who support the UK and who the UK should be proud of, who innovate and produce world beating technology. If BAE and RR did not exist, who wouldthe Uk buy defence systems from? The French (bad human rights record)? The Americans (do you want to support the US foregin policy) via investment in US defence systems? I dont think so.
Of course companies like BAE and RR are going to invest in achedemia – how on earth could these companies push the envelope in producing world beating technologies otherwise? Also, what about the financial support provided to Universities? Universities are there to assist in pushing boundries in technology and by working with RR and BAE so companies and achedemia, to produce better technologies for home markets and abroad. Investment in research has gone on for over 100 years in Universities and I dont think that it will stop soon!
Your article states that “right thinking people” (whatever they are) should not be on the side of the exicutioners – your article is not on the side of reality more like.
Why dont you report on serious issues like levels of student debt, potential careers after university, graduate job shortages and the like, instead of muck raking over the past?
Kudos to Jenny. We shouldn’t be supporting people who give torturers, dictators or murderers money.
Nothing wrong with defence companies. BAE make some good bullet-proof vests and good for them for that, but giving money to dictators, selling torture weapons to Saudi Arabia and selling weaponry used to kill over 100,000 people in Indonesia is not what I want my money invested in.
Hopefully the pension fund trustees will agree.
Grrr… Nouse, you can’t write an article slagging off vision for using no facts then printing articles with a similar lack of facts!
Students are not funding (directly or indirectly) any wars. Thats because no tuition fees are invested in any of these companies whatsoever. Some pensioned staff may be “indirectly funding wars” (slightly unreasonable nonetheless – BAE don’t fight wars) but no students are.
Our tuition fees do not even cover the basic costs of the degree programme – the taxpayer still heavily subsidises each and every one of us.
If you’re so angry about “indirectly funding wars” I suggest you give up paying all taxes whatsoever to stop indirectly funding the Iraq War. Stop buying anything with VAT charged on it. Stop driving or buying fuel. Don’t get anything insured. We all indirectly fund certain military operations.
Your anger is targeted at the wrong people – the pension fund is none of our business – the government is, and we have the option to change our government. Our unethical foreign policy and lack of investigations involving it, are due to decisions made by the government.
Don’t want to fund wars? Don’t vote them back in.
“Why dont you report on serious issues like levels of student debt, potential careers after university, graduate job shortages and the like, instead of muck raking over the past?”
It was their* ‘scoop’ – she’s just following the media tradition of patting herself on the back.
*The collective NOUSE
I’d hardly say Tom Scott yelling outside Heslington Hall to anyone who happened to be there was a scoop… Plus, YSTV were there too. With 2 cameras! It all got a bit much.
“Guess who invested £164.4 million in BAE Systems last year? It is a joke, but not a very funny one.”
It’s down right hillarious in light of your recent campaign – your protest was ultimately futile and in all fairness a booby prize ‘won’ through shock tactics, ignorance and misguided idealism.
“The issue of the USS is a new fight, and one that students and academics should be undertaking together. We can congratulate ourselves on ridding the University of York of BAE Systems, but the casebook is by no means closed.”
It’s none of your business…
Nouse apparently brought the issue to light in the first place – it’s their baby.
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2009/03/10/university-passes-ethical-investment-policy-following-student-campaign/
“The University has been facing pressure to sell their shares in BAE, the UK’s largest defense firm, and Rolls Royce since 2005, when Nouse revealed the extent of the University’s investment. In November, Nouse reported that the University had increased its shares in BAE, despite student pressure to divest. Currently, York is the ninth-largest university investor in the arms trade.”
“It all got a bit much.”
Have to agree with that one, I enjoyed throwing the placards at Vanburgh in the bin when they left though – Keep Britain tidy.
“shock tactics, ignorance and misguided idealism”
We’re talking about the bloody VICE-CHANCELLOR and SIR Christopher O’Donnell, etc… How the hell would they be a) ignorant, b) misguided or c) scared into doing something like this?!
There was a very logical chain of thought that led from the current unethical-policy against tobacco companies and led onto the fact that we have departments specifically orientated away from mass genocide and torture. I mean, how on earth can you say that the most important people in the university are ignorant? Most of them have been here for a long time, have been privy to every PRIVATE discussion on this topic for five years. They know more than the rest of us!
And the USS is a national scheme so proportionally less money is invested in BAE. But there are still fights out there and those universities that have ethical investment policies should join up and fight the bigger battles.
“In all fairness a booby prize ‘won’ through shock tactics, ignorance and misguided idealism.” I don’t see how it’s either misguided or even particularly idealistic to want this university to adopt an ethical investment policy. consistently with its code of conduct, and not invest in companies like BAE Systems who, whatever else they may do and whatever you personally may think of them, have supplied oppressive regimes, have sold torture equipment, are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and generally seem to have no scruples in their dealings. As for shock tactics, it’s particularly unfortunate if anyone felt the need to resort to these because they are completely unnecessary. The plain objective facts about BAE should be enough for anyone to have serious reservations about association with them and, more generally, the adoption of a policy to take at least some ethical considerations into account when the university invests should not be controversial or demand such tactics. It is very regrettable if you came across such shock tactics, they are not justified and they actually undermine those of us that support the university adopting an ethical investment policy.
“Your protest was ultimately futile”. No, the sentence you quote to try and justify this statement reveals that no impact has yet been made on another, separate, area of investment. This is unfortunate but it does not follow that the protest achieved nothing. How much impact the protest had on the council’s decision and what the ultimate results of the council’s decision will be, I do not know but your argument that the protest must have been futile is invalid.
“It’s none of your business”. Not sure if the “your” refers to Nouse or to students and academics. Clearly it is the business of academics what the USS invests in; it’s their pensions. How are you deciding what is anyone’s business anyway? The university’s investments are unlikely to have a huge impact on you personally but I still think you have a right to make your comments and make this issue part of your business, as does anyone else.
Honestly Richard, how sad a person are you? You have wasted so much of your time trying to convince us that we should be supporting the enablers of death and global misery, even though there are countless other viable alternatives available.
The debate here is not whether we believe BAE and Rolls Royce should exist. The debate here is whether or not we want to support their current practices. I think that most rational human beings would not want to support a company that arms some of the worst offenders of human rights on the face of the earth. If you think we should, congratulations and enjoy your happy and meaningful existence.
Congratulations, York have passed the buck and nothing will happen to BAE whatsoever because another investor will pick up the shares in a company which the government will not allow to fail!
Ethical investment is a good idea, as long as it’s the investors themselves which make the decisions with informed advice. Student protests are not informed advice. Those who didn’t sign the petition were insulted, those making us sign it were not informed – they thought tuition fees were being channelled into bomb-making. When asked about the pension fund, nobody seemed to even know what it was.
This protest does nothing apart from inflate the egos of a few jumped-up narcissists who parade around campus getting themselves noticed. Yet the elephant has not left the room. Wars are still occurring and British forces are still fighting them.
There IS something we can do to stop some conflicts involving british and European troops. We can vote for an ethical government which doesn’t attempt to spread peace by invading sovereign nations. We can vote for a government that won’t sell arms to oppressors. We can vote for a government which promises to be transparent over foreign policy.
We can write to our MPs, John Grogan voted AGAINST an investigation into the war and Hugh Bayley voted very strongly FOR the war itself.
If you’re really serious about ending conflict, write to those who actually make the decisions. Or better still, vote in the Euro and general elections and get the warmongerers out of office.
I read that as written – “vote in the Euro” – and thought you were insane… turns out that I just needed to read the whole sentence properly!
Some of the people that did petitioning seem to have been misinformed. Many of us (I’d personally say “most”) aren’t, however. I know what the pension fund is and the argument for our involvement on my part is that we’re university stakeholders and should have some input into the university’s direction.
And out of interest, when you say “vote the warmongerers out of office”, who do you suggest to vote in? The Conservatives? Because they’re not exactly peace-loving themselves…
Liberal Democrats have made explicit pledges for a peaceful, anti-war foreign policy. The Green Party would oppose the war too. The Respect Party are explicitly anti-war. I’m sure various socialist parties oppose war too.
Admittedly the respect party aren;t a credible political party and the socialists are more obsessed with philosophical divisions over interpretations of marx than they are about the real world, but the Lib Dems or Greens would be a safe option for a more ethical style of governing.
Labour had such a promising start, Robin Cook was one of the most principled politicians our generation has seen. But if we want to send a message to politicians that we don’t support illegal war, selling of arms to dictators, sending soldiers to die with the wrong equipment and cover-ups and dodgy dossiers which led to death, then we mustn’t be hoodwinked into believing Labour have a shred of ethical behaviour left in it’s upper echelons.
Time for change.
Daniel,
I realise that. I just want students to get behind a national cause as they have proven they care about a campus one. I make the distinction clearly in the article.
Tuition fees are paid to the University. The University pay pensions. Money gets shifted around from a central pot ie the budget.
This is how it is indirect. BAE provide weapons of war, therefore they aid the fighting of wars, therefore they are part of war. It’s actually quite simple.
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2009/03/10/a-progressive-system-is-our-only-way-out-of-chaos/ – tuition fee article from this edition by Camilla Jenkins.
Please, scroll down and you’ll see a lot more than if you just click on the top article. I have personally written about grad jobs, careers, and debt almost every edition since I started writing for Nouse.
We never claimed it was a scoop… it was a protest, they aren’t hard to miss.
Appreciate these comments though, much better than silence!
The problem with Lib Dems or Greens is, of course, the voting system. If we were in a STV or AV+ system then voting by preference is fine but in a FPP system people want to make sure that their vote counts.
In terms of the upcoming elections, the Liberal Democrat council that we have at present have utterly failed at maintaining cycle paths, roads, street lighting, housing, environmental improvements and other essentials – a Labour Council would be a much safer bet, since they’ve already got policy in place to deal with these things. With Europe, it’s possible to get them elected but in Europe they won’t deal with these issues.
And in the general election we’ll have to see how close each candidate is – if it’s a two-horse race then voting for another will be moral but irrelevant and for the majority of people, I suspect, it will make more sense to try and persuade Labour to change than to try and get Lib Dems to win a general election (which won’t happen soon). But it’s up to the people.
And Labour DO have a shred of ethical behaviour left – it’s just been shrouded in generic quasi-bourgeois public-relations bureaucracy, I’m sure. Gordon Brown, Hilary Benn and a fair few others have strong moral backgrounds but, for whatever reason, they seem to hide it when they reach the level of government. Very odd!
Ahh the trickle down argument. Full of holes.
If i pay for a good (tuition) it is up to the receiver of my money what s/he spends it on. If it’s spent on something I don;t approve of, it’s no longer any of my business.
If I pay X for a good, he pays Y for a good and Y pays Z for some cannabis, am I indirectly funding the drug trade? Because that’s what this article implies just with different examples. And that undermines so much of economics if responsibility lies with everyone who has ever handled a specific note or coin, or fixed, identifiable sum of money.
And on the central pot argument, please do some research before publishing bull crap. Funding is extremely complex. There is no central pot and never has been. Tuition fees pay for (some) tuition. Not even all of it. The taxpayer still hugely subsidises degrees. Estates and facilities see no fees money. Neither do conference staff. Neither do some researchers. The HERC building isn’t paid for by fees. And neither, surprise surprise, is the pension fund.
I repeat, our fees do not even cover the cost of a complete degree. Let alone anything else.
“On Friday, the University Council agreed to end the University pension fund’s continued stake in BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. York currently has £997,342 worth of shareholdings in these companies, but this will no longer be the case in the future.”
Really???
hopefully.