University passes ethical investment policy following student campaign
The University of York has begun the implementation of an ethical investment policy following years of student pressure.
The policy, which University Council passed on Friday evening, mandates the University to ‘not knowingly invest in companies whose activities include practices which directly pose a risk of serious harm to individuals or groups.’
YUSU President Tom Scott, who was present at the Council meeting, announced the decision to divestment campaigners waiting outside Heslington Hall: “This is the result of years of work by former Ethics and Environment Officers, former Presidents, and former Campaigns Officers. The whole working partnership put together the policy; this has been years of work that has finally come to fruition today.”
The policy states that reviews will be conducted ‘on a regular basis’ to assess ‘whether any investment is contrary to the University’s value system’.
University Press Officer David Garner stated: “The policy allows for any group or individual member of the University community to make representations to the University regarding its investments.”
The announcement came after a fortnight of heightened campaigning by campus societies A protest on February 27 took place on the lawns of Heslington Hall, while a 2,000 signature-strong petition was compiled by organisers calling for the University to divest from arms-producing companies.
Outside of its standard investments, the University holds around £1,000,000 worth of shares in BAE and Rolls Royce in its Pension Scheme, which is externally managed by trustees.
“The University Council noted that the University of York Pension Scheme is constituted as a separate corporate body with its own board of trustees. The scheme’s funds are invested entirely separately from those of the University. The Council decided that it should draw the University’s Ethical Investment Policy to the attention of the board of trustees for its consideration,” Garner’s statement continued.
“The policy should definitely be applied to the pension fund… this is an issue that hangs in the balance at the moment,” stressed YUSU Environment and Ethics Officer John Nicholls.
There are already worries that the policy will not necessarily have to be accepted by the Pension Scheme’s trustees. Scott stated the proposal is now “out of Council’s hands. It’s up to the Registrar and the Director of Finance to see where it will go from here.”
The divestment petition was read out during the Council meeting. Scott stated “I think [Council] was surprised to find people coming up with a well-worded petition with thousands of signatures. It greatly impressed them.”
“This is a major thing. Let’s not forget that there aren’t that many universities with something like this even now,” Scott added.
Kaye Stearman, Media Co-ordinator for Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), said: “Congratulations to all the activists at York University for challenging the university on the investment issue. CAAT is delighted to hear that the University Council has taken such a major step. It is vital now that the Council implements its new ethical investment policy and pulls its funds out of arms companies.”
“Students at York have an important role in monitoring the implemention of the policy and ensuring that there is no backsliding,” Stearman added.
Jason Rose, a key member in coordinating the campaign, commended the Council for their decision: “We are lucky to attend a University that listens to its students and I am thankful that they passed this policy.”
GSA President Daniel Carr, who also sits on Council, said: “I think it was very pleasing that the university did pay attention the number of students involved, that this was a mass effort.”
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.
Scott explained that the document ensured that the University would not invest in unethical companies for the foreseeable future: “The policy was deliberately non-specific. This is meant for the long term, for 10 years, for 100 years from now.”
Georgia Pettifar, who has been consistently involved in the divestment campaign, remained cautious. “We won’t stand for a policy that is ethical only in name, and we hope to work closely with the university in developing investments that ensure the University’s capital is working hard to support the its wider aims of improving the lives of and common understanding between all,” she said.
Loading ...
This is an absolute disgrace. How on earth have the university crumbled to these naive and ignorant protests? Not only are the majority of the protesters that I have spoken to extremely ill informed, but they also used shock tactics to harass students to put their signatures onto the petitions. Had the students been given an accurate portrayal of the companies in question I am confident that they wouldn’t have been so easily hoodwinked into putting their names onto the petition, as suggested by the more popular facebook group, created by Michael D’Cruze, to protest against the protesters.
How patronising. Nobody has been “hoodwinked”, every student is capable of making up their own mind. Is it only the fact that they have disagreed with your own view that makes you think otherwise? And what inaccuracies, specifically, are you speaking of? Anyone who looks into the corporate history of BAE for themselves will find many cases of apalling conduct. Do you deny the ongoing SFO investigations into BAE or the controversial deals with Saudi Arabia? For me, these alone would be enough to motivate divestment in BAE and if others feel the same way and supported this campaign for the same reasons, then their support has been based on the truth, however disagreeable that is to you.
Mike,
If you look at the membership of council, I think you will agree that they are not a group of people that would ‘crumble’ to ‘naive and ignorant protests.’
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/aso/council/const.htm
Mike, listen up.
The people sitting on Council are 3 faculty reps, several Pro-Vice-Chancellors and the Vice Chancellor. Other than those and maybe a director or two (finance?) the rest are EXTERNAL PEOPLE who have not seen or heard anything from students until the meeting itself. They’re well trained specialists who are there to determine policy with a wide range of experience.
Sir Christopher O’Donnell is hardly biased!
[This will be addressed to the anti-DISARM group and their tactics, not to all those who disagreed with the ethical investment policy for their own perfectly legitimate reasons]
The anti-DISARM group sent a letter to the University Council, in which they said that students should not have a say on university issues.
Did they even take a moment to consider the monumental irony behind this? They were effectively asking the Council to ignore their view – which it did.
The ‘scare-tactics’ that you report are ridiculous and never took place. And the fact that you use such lies is a scare-tactic in itself. Stop resorting to vile propaganda to manufacture consent, the way you try to pursue your reactionist cause is even more disgusting than its contents.
And how can you have the nerve to speak about ‘ill-informed’ protesters, when your group’s description has all the facts wrong? (When it actually uses facts and arguments that is, and not just assertions and assumptions). Also, the reason why your hate group is popular (in terms of facebook members, the most accurate index of a movement’s support…) is because:
a) you lie
b) you lie some more
c) pretty much all of our members (I’ve seen at least 60, from those that I know personally) have joined to argue against said lies
How did the counter-rally go, incidentally? I remember that about 12 people expressed an interest last time. But of course, you think that students shouldn’t have a say, so just leave the protesting to those of us who actually care.
I am a member of the anti-disarm group purely because of their basic stance. Not all of their views and arguments I agree with.
More than one of your “informed” petitioners approached me asking me to sign the petition. Not one of them was able to answer me when I asked what Rolls Royce and BAE actually did other than giving me a very basic summary. One was so ill-informed that when questioned about Rolls Royce they replied with: “Well they make engines for planes, oh and they make cars.”. How can a person so adamently opposing a company not know anything about them???
As for scare tactics I think you’ll find that a lot of students found the aggressive methods of your petitioners offensive. In Derwent I was asked if I agree with “children being murdered”. Obviously I don’t agree with that and was then assured that these companies are responsible for such tragedies and as such by supporting those companies I support the murder of children. Fortunately I have knowledge of these companies and know that a lot of what I was told was vastly exaggerated and did not accurately represent the companies as a whole. If I didn’t already know a lot about the companies in question I could see how the petitioners put across a persuasive argument. However even a little bit of research shows them to be extremely biased and misleading.
In response to the points about the Council I would not be arrogant enough to assume I know all their reasons for reaching their decision. However if the protests played a significant part in the decision that the Council made then I believe that the wrong decision was made for the wrong reasons.
The Council is made up of educated individuals who know about policy-making, are experienced and include some of the finest minds outside of York as well as inside York. To say that they would be persuaded to change the university’s stance because of student opinion alone is a bit pathetic..!
It is a shame that some of the people that helped with the petition were mistruthful and didn’t know the full background information but do not believe for a minute that the Council were fed with false information, that the majority of people in the group lie or are ignorant. There are very good reasons, cited in various places (i.e. genocide, illegal funding, corruption scandals and torture worldwide) as to why we disagree with BAE and you have to look at the policy itself to see who it bans and why.
I have less information on Rolls Royce because less information is available but I can still give you some information on their products and which unethical leaders own them worldwide. I am sure that there are a lot of people in the group who know about these issues and I’m sure that each have their own specialties. I’ve been researching the University of York’s investment schemes, M&G and the workings of the trustee board – but I haven’t been looking into alternative investment methods or which shares have been consistantly strong for years. Ask me about one set and you’ll find I know a lot, ask me about another and I seem relatively ignorant – but it’s not relevant to the passion that I have!
Indeed, it has been said that the ethical investment policy supports Palestine, etc. There are a whole host of mistruths floating around on both sides and hopefully it hasn’t changed student opinion at all – it definitely hasn’t changed the university’s!
Regardless, the university is a charity and also has rules in place against smoking companies because of the confliction with the HYMS.. so this is just a logical progression regarding other departments that the university agreed should happen 3 years ago
Ethical Investment? Great, now world peace will surely follow.
Can we start protesting against pharmaceutical investment so we can cure cancer too?
Mistruthful?
How is it pathetic to believe that the Council listened to the protesters? If you didn’t expect them to listen to you why the hell did you bother protesting? What were you expecting to accomplish if not this result? So explain to me why my belief that the protest influenced the Council is pathetic?
What is pathetic is the harassment many students faced and the pressure they were put under. Many people I have spoken to were upset by the nature of your petitioners, one girl I spoke to claimed that the guy who approached her simply would not take no for an answer and wouldn’t leave her alone. In the end he was forced to leave by friends of the girl. How can you justify that?
Also I would like to see some proof of BAE are directly responsible for genocide and torture? I’m fairly sure BAE themselves would be very interested to see your proof as well since you seem so adamant that this takes place. Without evidence this is merely slander and libel and people making such claims should be careful that they have evidence to support them.
BAE is infamous for its connections with Robert Mugabe (sold military hardware to Zimbabwe), Abdul Aziz al Saud (sold torture supplements to Saudi Arabia), Augusto Pinochet etc. etc.
BAE has sold military aircrafts to the Indonesian army under the regime of General Suharto. Those have been used in the occupation of East Timor, which according to the United Nations has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 civilians.
Also, 236 military aircrafts have been sold to the IDF, which almost without doubt have been used to claim the lives of Palestinian civilians – perhaps even in the latest assault on Gaza.
I would not go as far as saying that BAE is ‘directly responsbile’ for genocide and torture – but this is a case of arming some of the worst offenders of human rights on earth.
We are not investing that much to BAE and Rolls Royce anyway, so this is really an issue of whether we want to support such practices.
I hadn’t realised til you phrased it that way, but you’re right – anything positive, because it isn’t world peace or a cure for cancer, is completely ridiculous! And because those things seem quite hard to achieve as well, we can probably stop trying to do anything positive at all, and just do whatever we want. Genius!
Probably the only thing actually WORTH doing is making smug self-satisfied comments on the websites of small student newspapers..
BAE and torture:
In 1995, investigative reporters caught BAE staff on film offering electroshock batons for sale as torture equipment, and admitting that they had sold 8,000 to the Saudis and thousands more to the Chinese
BAE and genocide:
BAE supplied Hawk Ground Attack aircraft to the genocidal Suharto military dictatorship in Indonesia which were used to attack civilians in then illegally-occupied East Timor.
BAE have also supplied Hawk Jets to Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe. While not genocide, is this deal something you approve of?
Mike, the policy that has been passed isn’t targeted at any specific company. Personally I find BAE and Rolls Royce to be companies that I would prefer an institution I am a part of not to needlessly invest in, but that of course is the next big argument that needs to happen as a steering group is set up to decide upon what ethical criteria the university should set for itself. The current policy was left deliberately open on that score.
Perhaps a few of the campaigners may have been a little more passionate about this issue than some people would like, and I admit that the story you tell is certainly one in which the campaigner is guilty of a faux pas if nothing else, but it is an extremely important issue. As for the details of individual companies, that is kind of beside the point – you can fully support divestment from the arms trade or companies complicit in environmentally damaging oil drilling without knowing the ins and outs of each company.
The point is that, until an Ethical Investment policy is adopted (by the University and also by the trustees of externally held funds), the University cannot divest from a company it disapproves of the actions of, its investments can only be governed by purely financial criteria. So, for example, a year or two ago when it emerged that the University had significant investments in PetroChina, a company that was directly implicated in some fairly terrible things in Darfur, there was simply nothing that could be done. If you feel particularly passionate about the University having continued investment in BAE, for some strange reason, then when it comes to the discussion of what criteria the University should have, that is the time for you to make your argument.
I fail to understand what is objectionable about the Uni having a framework for taking ethical considerations into account when evaluating their investments. It won’t harm their portfolio – I see little chance that the University’s finance committee will decide to put all of their money into organic hemp. EI funds have been demonstrated to perform as well as funds with an open investment universe. We are not the first University to take this step, and since this is now NUS national policy (thanks to York), we certainly won’t be the last. Nor is it limited to educational institutions, many large organistations and companies have EI/SRI policies, and it is the subject of a UN committee aiming to promote it internationally.
Quite frankly, I cannot begin to understand where the anti-DISARM group are coming from – I can’t understand what it is you are hoping to achieve.
I’m not going to wade to much into the debate but please stop preying on people’s historical ignorance by using Zimbabwe as an example. Mugabe only began to become unpopular internationally after his 1998 land reforms. Up until that point he had been hailed as a guiding light in Africa and as the first black PM an important move away from minority white rule that had existed up until his election. BAE stopped arms trade with Zimbabwe just 18 months after the land reform policy, two years before the EU placed an arms embargo on the country.
How beautifully misguided, almost as much as the protests.
I wasn’t remarking on how world peace is a futile aim but more of how misguided hippies jump on a bandwagon after watching too much of ‘the young ones’ and feel that students should always be protesting, it’s what we do.
I don’t agree with investing in BAE but all we’ve managed to accomplish so far is an ethical investment policy in this university. Such a retarded Not-in-my-backyard-argument. It’s obvious none of the protesters condone BAE’s actions but the self satisfied feeling of victory that seems to lull around on campus is pathetic.
Face it, you’ve achieved nothing other than selling York’s shares onto another investor and whilst your consciences may be temporarily clean you’ve done nothing to change the world other than move a problem out of your sight.
The British and American armies are among the biggest contracts BAE hold. They provide an essential service to the country by keeping the army well equipped and constantly providing new weapons to give our soldiers the best chance possible to survive and protect the interests of our country. Do you condemn this activity too? As for selling aircraft to the IDF judgement on this is purely down to your political views on the situation in Palestine which certainly is not the issue here. However Israel are well know allies of England, having supported us in the past, and are a strategically important country within the region.
No one is saying that these deals are right or are something we agree with or support. But if they were proved to be illegal in any way then surely BAE would be shut down. But they aren’t and it’s a fact of life that these things happen.
All this protest can serve to do is harm the university. It’s no secret that a large amount of the funding for the Electronics and Physics departments come from BAE, and this decision can only harm the departments.
I definitely agree that it’s not a long term solution to anything (or even a short term one). But that doesn’t mean it’s nothing. It’s not just this university, hopefully it will one day be taken on by all Universities in the UK – it is after all a national campaign. Given that it’s not just limited to universities either, but is a rapidly growing phenomenom, it could effectively become a way of holding companies to account. All in all, there’s a lot of money involved.
It’s better to do something than nothing. See you at the barricades?
“All this protest can serve to do is harm the university”
You should have told that to the University Council before they apparently did exactly the opposite of what they are legally supposed to do. I think they probably thought things through.
And yes, Israel killed people with planes and people are upset – but there are 500,000 people that were killed in Indonesia –before– BAE sold weapons to the government there that probably wouldn’t be happy. That’s ignoring the illegal siphoning of funds to Chile and all the other problems.
And it’s not like our shares give them money. It’s a silly argument and especially now that the University has decided that scrapping them would –benefit– the university because I think they know more than us lot about this sort of thing!!!
No, you really wont.
These protests have served more to annoy and alienate a lot of campus. This national campaign may, at best, reduce the share price of BAE but someone else will buy the shares and someone else will make a lot of money out of it.
Did anyone try and create a long-term plan/mission statement/think about what they’ll achieve before they started finger painting banners and screaming retro chants at Heslington Hall?
This is not life changing nor is it a landmark victory, it’s a minor inconvenience for BAE and a great investment for whoever snaps up our shares.
Ok rather than discuss the negative effects this protest may have tell me what benefits you think this protest and policy could have for the university? I can’t see one.
Didn’t think so, worth a try though. Will you do anything at any point?
It all depends, of course, on how far the EI/SRI thing spreads – as I’ve said several times now, it’s a rapidly growing phenomenon. Of course this isn’t international revolution, of course it’s a fairly minor step, that goes without saying. But it is a minor step nonetheless, and I don’t think there is any harm in people taking a little time to be happy about it. If absolutely nothing else, this campaign at least brings to people’s attention how these things are connected. The Gaza strip looks a lot further away when seen from that perspective.
I don’t know why so many people seem so determined that students have to be idiots. Yes, actually, the campaign has been running for years and years, carefully, slowly and painstakingly. In York alone, it’s been discussed and researched by students and staff together since before most of us set foot here. The fingerpaint is only one phase, but it’s still a part of it.
“but someone else will buy the shares and someone else will make a lot of money out of it”
Hate to mention it again but BAE and RR shares last year cost us over £250,000 so I suspect that at best someone else will buy the shares and make a massive LOSS out of it. Don’t like mentioning it too much but, well, you raised it again!
It shows that the university backs its own ideas up: Brian Cantor said two years ago that if universities couldn’t say that they had morals “what else could they say?” and the University’s own code of conduct specifies that it works towards a better society and greater education. Indirectly supporting the destruction of Gaza University, as well as the torture and deaths of hundreds of thousands of others, is unreasonable.
And, of course, it has been proven time and time again (the university’s main shareholder scheme, through the investment company M&G, has no shares in BAE or RR) that the ethical investments are MORE profitable.
So, essentially, the policy has a truck load of positive effects. Unethical investment is costing us money, is a conflict of interest and is, frankly, hypocricy by the university itself… and it’s following many universities at the same level as us who already have ethical investment policies (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc.) and will soon be joined by Cambridge, it seems. If you want a snippet, Edinburgh’s includes “human rights abuse, discrimination on grounds of race, gender or disability and serious and persistent environmental damage” – and if we want to compete with these universities, and they start advertising their morality and we are unable to, we’ll fall short.
So that’s a way that the policy can benefit the university.
In terms of the protest; it shows that the student populace agree with what the university is doing. That the counter-protest never really took place and that more members of the Conservative society attended the main rally shows that this is a very popular contest. The minority of people irritated with the pots and pans (etc.) shows that the noise level itself was the irritation and not the protest. It’s a rally and a call to get more people involved in student politics – more people on both sides to voice their opinion and that can only be a good thing.
Well for a start it gets them a little further towards honouring the words in their corporate plan: ‘the University sees itself as an organisation committed to the health, wealth and well-being of society as a whole.’
Honestly, I just really don’t understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that adopting an investment framework in which ethical considerations can be taken into account is an entirely negative thing. How??
Does anyone care about this issue? Really?! It’s worse than watching pain dry!!
‘Does anyone care about this issue?’
Probably the most redundant question to be asked in the process of this debate.
Ugh… Peace lovers and do-gooders… Wrap the world up in cotton wool and all that…
The fact is that the university is as much a business as it is an educational institute and if BAE are bringing in the money and we as students are reaping the benefits with improvements to courses/facilities/resources then we should be happy. So what if death is profitable! It’s also inevitable so why not earn some cash out of it before it gets you too!
Also, do you really think the paltry “just under £1million” investment that the university was making made bugger all difference to BAE? Do you think that by waving placards and chanting you’ve somehow saved the world!? No… you haven’t… so don’t even think about patting yourselves on the back for what is ultimately a useless, self-righteous gesture to make yourselves feel better for the fluffy peaceful lives you’ve lived – Drown in the salty tears of your guilt “socially concerned” westerners…
The arms trade isn’t so bad anyway… We live in a world built on conflict and we’ll always find something to fight over – it’s in our nature! Besides have you do-gooders ever considered how boring the news would be without “Genocide in [insert unstable nation here]“!? Have some decency and think of the man in the Wetherspoons… How would he feel if all he had to see on BBC News 24 was “Everything’s great!”?! At least he has the small relief that his own life spunked on alcohol, cigarettes and pornography isn’t that bad really – he could be in Africa or the middle east!…
The truth is… Guns are fun! Explosives are even better! Eurofighter is fan-foooking-tastic! So if you’ve got some spare pennies this easter don’t give them to Oxfam – they’ve got more than enough – give it to BAE and help make stuff go Boom! Urrrgggghhh! Mummy! etc…
Yes! Makes for interesting news you have to admit and gets right up the do-gooders noses! More of this son…
“Probably the only thing actually WORTH doing is making smug self-satisfied comments on the websites of small student newspapers..”
Amen to that!
Shock tactics indeed…
One such protesters only arguement was to grit his teeth and scream “How the f*** would you feel if I got an ‘AK’ and stuck in your face?!!! Then you’d S*** yourself!” at me before running away.
Peace lovers eh! No flaw to that statement…
“The fact is that the university is as much a business as it is an educational institute and if BAE are bringing in the money and we as students are reaping the benefits with improvements to courses/facilities/resources then we should be happy.”
The money invested comes from the pension fund. Do read the article please, you are only making a fool of yourself.
“So what if death is profitable! It’s also inevitable so why not earn some cash out of it before it gets you too!”
Please die.
“Also, do you really think the paltry “just under £1million” investment that the university was making made bugger all difference to BAE?”
Not all, we just do not want to support them.
“Do you think that by waving placards and chanting you’ve somehow saved the world!?”
No, but we have won us an ethical investment policy, which was our goal in the first place.
“give it to BAE and help make stuff go Boom! Urrrgggghhh! Mummy! etc…”
I would try to end my comment in a positive tone, but the best thing I can I wish you is aggressive brain cancer.
Basically all this now looks like is an opportunity for you lot to feel slightly better about yourselves and slightly less guilty about the fact that your lives are relatively problem free whilst millions of people worldwide suffer. If you really think this has made any difference to BAE or the arms trade then your wrong. You haven’t changed the world. You’ve just managed to compromise two departments who get the majority of it’s funding from BAE.
And before you ask my main reason disagreeing with this protest and policy is purely down to the fact that this benefits none at all, and potentially it damages many. There are other reasons, but that is the big one.
None of you have yet managed to explain how this is in any way a positive thing. All anyone seems to gain is that you protesters get to enjoy your easy life styles feeling slightly less guilty. Well done. You should be proud.
Wow very mature fella well done. Truly you are an inspiration to your cause.
Explain to me exactly what Rolls Royce are involved in. You’ve said you wouldn’t want to invest in them from an ethical perspective. Tell me what percentage of their engines go into fighter planes? Do you know? I’m guessing you don’t. And do they have control over who those planes are sold to? Again if you knew anything about the company you’d know they don’t.
Hook, Line and Sinker…
“The money invested comes from the pension fund. Do read the article please, you are only making a fool of yourself.”
Then why do you care? Will you benefit from a University of York pension? It has no tangible impact on your life – lets be honest this whole protest was all about making yourselves feel better – and if the comments regarding the loss the university made on the investment are true then I’ll sleep with a smile knowing that the divestment probably had little to do with your campaigning, more like killing two birds with one stone – apease the ‘cotton-wool massive’ and get the money out of BAE and into something more profitable, followed by the boards collective “mwuhahahaha”.
“Please die.”
I’m dying one second at a time toots
so are you…
“I would try to end my comment in a positive tone, but the best thing I can I wish you is aggressive brain cancer.”
Well with all your hard work the university will, with a bit of luck, invest its pension fund into curing ‘aggressive brain cancer’ – wouldn’t your name be fitting then ‘Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss [delete as appropriate] Irony…
“The ’scare-tactics’ that you report are ridiculous and never took place. And the fact that you use such lies is a scare-tactic in itself. Stop resorting to vile propaganda to manufacture consent, the way you try to pursue your reactionist cause is even more disgusting than its contents.”
They did – several tried them on me and I witnessed the same happen to others. I can call on several friends who also suffered the same flawed arguements and shock tactics as I did – they also lacked the ability to listen to the points of view of others…
That is not to say that was the case of all of the protesters I met – I spoke to a few who were knowledgable and fair and more than willing to listen to an alternative view without resorting to shouting, crying or preaching.
..while comments such as “So what if death is profitable! It’s also inevitable so why not earn some cash out of it before it gets you too!” are so mature and inspirational that words can’t describe..
You’re very right, I don’t. The figures I knew two years ago would be inaccurate even if I could remember them in any detail. My personal feeling is merely that I would prefer an educational institution to avoid investment in companies involved in the arms trade. I don’t think that that is such an absurd position to hold.
There were long conversations about what would constitute involvement in the arms trade in meetings with the University administration (if a company provides sandwiches to BAE employees, for example, would they be involved in the arms trade). We didn’t settle that question, by any means – that’s a conversation that is still to come – but the suggestion of the then Registrar and PVC for Estates (who formed the admin side of the group) was that the policy should perhaps have some form of quota system, whereby if more than x% of a company’s profits came from the trade or manufacture of arms they would be discounted. Obviously that is the kind of decision the new steering group would have to make.
On the accusation that this will damage research contacts, this policy was also reviewed (positively) by the PVC for research, who seemed to see no problem.
AGAIN – I can understand your championing a single company (RR for example), and I can understand your concern about the University’s research contacts (though it seems perhaps a little self-interested, are you perhaps one of the ‘many who this will hurt’?), what I simply CANNOT understand is how the concept of an ethical framework for investment (without specific details worked in, as they currently aren’t) can be seen as a negative thing?
yesterdays hero, today’s tyrant… history has had its fair share. Hats off to another flawed arguement from the ‘DISARM! massive’ – shame it’s too late now…
Is this really poorly executed satire? I can’t tell..
Yes…
Oh! Apart from this part…
“life spunked on alcohol, cigarettes and pornography”
There’s more accuracy in that statement than you’ll ever understand – that’s the harsh truth of working class British society.
No that’s just called realism fella
Well I’m mildly annoyed, had I known a few months ago what I know now I’d have nominated Cowan or Griffiths for YUSU presidency…
Rose, I’m not entirely sure how shares would have cost us £250,000 unless we sold them at a loss. Please share your source. Incidentally, you could have run for YUSU too, I hear northerners dressed as fictional characters tend to do quite well…
Erm, what I find ironic is that you posted under the name Irony… you actually responded in seriousness to what was meant to be a satire (albeit poorly executed, apparently!).
You are an idiot.
A.
Oh good.