A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
YUSU Environment & Ethics Officers John Nicholls and Joe Thwaites have spoken out against the current investment situation.
In 2006, the university agreed to draft an ethical investment policy in collaboration with students, following a series of protests.
However as reported by Nouse, over the last few years the university has increased its shareholding in arms producing companies significantly.
Following this revelation, Nicholls, Thwaites and their many supporters have made a move to change the way in which investment policies are carried out.
Students have shown an interest in taking the issue forward now, as they have in the past.
Nicholls told The Yorker: "At the moment the main focus for us is getting the UGM motion passed, with a good turnout. This will update our mandate to press the university for the adoption of an ethical investment policy."
Nicholls and Thwaites aim to keep the issue at the forefront of students' minds, "with possible events including music nights and film screenings to raise awareness about the broader issues of the arms trade". Nicholls explains: "We aim to keep up the pressure next term in the lead up to the proposed adoption of the policy."
Negative impacts for students are not expected. Nicholls said: "It's important to emphasis that this will not, and cannot, be financially detrimental to the university."
"Research carried out by the Ethical Investment Research Service (EIRIS) shows that investments made according to an ethical criteria often perform as well or better than ones without such criteria."
For more information on the campaign contact environment@yusu.org. Voting for the UGM will open in Week 9.
"YUSU Environment & Ethics Committee are to submit a motion at this week's UGM that will mandate the university to invest more ethically in future."
Surely a UGM does not have that power, is the motion not to mandate for YUSU to campaign for the University to invest more ethically in future?
Indeed, the UGM will only make YUSU campaign for different investment.
Expect this motion to pass. A motion hasn't failed in the last 3 years (according to YUSU website). Shame really, as the reporting on this issue has been terrible. Rolls Royce make engines, not weapons. And DEFENCE is not about killing innocent civilians, it's about defending our troops and our country.
The BAE and Rolls investments are actually part of a pension fund. The SU are nothing to do with this, and have no right to tell staff what to invest in!
I action The Yorker to do some of their mint reporting and adress the exteremly urgent points raised by #2. Is it actually weapons or other bits of the companies in q that are relevant?
go journalism!
#2, I think this motion's been proposed before but was not quorate? Other than that, I agree with you.
As for Rolls Royce not being a defence company - Defence News list them as the 17th biggest defence company in the world.
#2 BAE make various offensive weapons, using the word "defence" in relation to every military action does not make it so. In modern warfare casualties are overwhelmingly civilian and innocent civilians are often killed by BAE's weapons. Whatever you think of the morality of this, as a fact it is indisputable. They also export to various countries (over 100 in total) who have no part or interest in defending our troops or our country and many of which could certainly not be considered allies. In fact, BAE's sales in the UK make up a minority of its sales. It is completely misleading to suggest these investments are entirely or largely to do with the defence of our troops or nation
#2's right. It's not like we're investing in offense firms. THAT would be worrying.
BAE (in conjunction with UK governments, both Labour and Tory) have been involved in numerous 'unethical' deals in recent decades. They have been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office several times over accusations of corruption and bribery.
They also have a record of a long string of sales to countries with very poor human rights records and ongoing conflicts (Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, etc.). Whilst this in itself may not be illegal, it could be argued that it is unethical to fuel war and those abuses.
It could also be argued that if you sell someone a carving knife and they choose to butcher their family with it then it's not your fault. On the other hand, one would certainly be unlikely to sell a carving knife to someone with a well-known (and ongoing) history of stabbing family members.
In addition to unethical deals, they have been known to perpetrate unethical business practice in the past. For example, knowingly, falsely inflating the price of an air traffic control system for the nation of Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world, by 8 times during its development.
Lots more can be read on BAE Systems here.
Whilst Rolls Royce are less involved, to quote their own website:
"Rolls-Royce does not just sell its engines to prime contractors such as BAE Systems, Boeing and Lockheed Martin and leave it there; an important part of its service is the support given 'right up to the front line to the 100 armed forces and 30 navies who use our engines to power their aircraft, helicopters, ships and submarines.'"
This includes countries with such dubious human rights records as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Indonesia, Brunei, South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe.
(2 pence given, Mitch out)
The counter arguments to #2 have mostly been covered. I'd like to add that of course the SU can have an impact on university investment, as the students provide a good deal of the funding for such investments through tuition fees. This is not to say we "tell the staff what to invest in" but we do legitimately have an influence. The university take this issue very seriously and have a policy waiting for final approval. This motion is to show continued support that policy. I hope to see many of you there tonight.
Turkey's ongoing conflict is due to the volatile situation in the south, near the iraqi border. Insurgency is rife, and i would ask all those who oppose our export of defence products to turkey to outline just how the nation should protect itself from insurgents otherwise. 'Buy them from someone else' is not an adequate response, it's just buck-passing.
Saudi Arabia i cannot defend on human rights, yet the BAE deal was nothing to do with human rights abuses within the nation. The majority of rights abuses stem from an antiquated legal system where the officers for the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice have near-absolute authority to treat a human being in any way they see fit. Coupled with kangaroo 'religious' courts, harsh punishments for questionable offenses are handed out. BAE do not figure in any sharia punishment nor in the application of Saudi law.
The Saudi-British deal was for AEROPLANES. Eurofighters to be precise. Not guns, not bombs, not missiles or knives or hangmans' nooses. But Aeroplanes. Please bear this in mind when trying to link horrific abuses of human rights and dignity to one supplier of aeroplanes. Or should we say Saudi Arabia shouldn't have any planes to defend itself? Abhorrent as their legal system and constitutional arrangements may be, the BAE has not been instrumental in any of these abuses. The corruption I cannot defend, but if we're going to attack BAE for corruption, please add the Labour party, the tories, UKIP and the Lib Dems to list of corrupt organisations we should boycott. All have been investigated too.
#7, so rolls royce are a bad, unethical company because they support soldiers on the frontline? I think that's something to be proud of. Besides, most companies would be frowned upon if they didn't offer after-sales service. Why the difference here?
I see the nobility of this cause, yet it just doesn't seem to have been thought through. Are you against these investments because of pacifism? (and would pacifism REALLY work if we stopped making arms today?). Are you against these investments because York should pass the role of investing to another institution (buck-passing, burying-heads-in-sand approach). How can SU idealism relate to a world where peace needs keeping in fractured societies, and who can keep peace without a military?
If we divest, someone else will see the opportunity for a good return, positive engagement with graduate recruiters and the possibility of sponsorship.
It seems we all want to wash our hands of anything to do with war, yet will this campaign keep its momentum if, say, University of London buy up the 'York' shares?
Perhaps the question we should ask is whether these investments are making us any money. If the answer is no, that's a far more solid case for divesting.
#9 (who I can only presume is a certain Mr Coen given the writing style), you appear to be misinformed on Al Yammah. The deals also included over 8,000 electro-shock batons that are "routinely used for the torture of innocent civilians".
As the University Press Office stated, the university have a legal obligation to maximise profitability of it's pension schemes. However, I believe that if at all possible, investment in such companies should be avoided if such profitability can be improved upon or maintained elsewhere.
War is a good hedge. The university is being sensible in it's investments. It is simply trying to spread risk across different sectors. In each global environments certain investments will go up whilst others go down, by 'spreading their bets' the university is simply insuring itself against any possible global environment. If they invested in entirely in stocks that gained in a peaceful world and a violent world erupted their portfolio would be destroyed. The same applies to a portfolio of violent world gaining stocks. They shouldn't be condemned for being sensible and being prepared for any outcome.
#11: they're not being condemned for being sensible with their investments, but for being unethical with them.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article613978.ece
BAE systems provided weaponry for Saudi Arabia.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/actioncenter/actions/uaa27307.pdf
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&template=x.ascx&action=8979
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGNAU200810147700
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGNAU200804284748
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-and-markets/article.html?in_article_id=425477&in_page_id=3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/victoriaderbyshire/2008/04/should_the_pm_reopen_the_inqui.html
"We have strong positions in each of our six home markets – Australia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, UK, US – and have organised the business to reflect this."
What have Saudi Arabia and South Africa done recently that make us think they're ethical governments?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/south-africa-displaced-people-should-not-be-forcibly-removed-temporary-c
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE23/045/2008/en/587c7a00-b0b3-11dd-ab25-87d0050ca707/mde230452008eng.pdf
I can continue pointing out the problems with BAE systems for years. They have provided the weaponry that terrorists, as well as unethical governments, use worldwide. For example, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bae-condemned-for-targeting-trouble-spots-to-sell-arms-579928.html
What's astounding is that they consider their HOME nations to include two countries that have poor human rights records. I can't understand why you WOULDN'T think that they're unethical.
And I don't undestand why certain people, who for some reason are anonymous here, think that the university are unable to put their money as securely in many other businesses..!!
So vote on Monday to stop consorting with BAE and push for more ethical improvements within and outside of the university.
So how do you define 'ethical investments'? Are we not going to invest in any Oil firms as they will destroy the environment? How about the motor industry? Or the aviation industry? I hear the terrorists in Mumbai used digital photographs to prepare for their attacks, perhaps we should stop investment in Electronics firms? Or perhaps anybody that makes anything that harms anyone?
#14: Defining ethical investments is indeed difficult, but I think there is a clear distinction between the products you mention which are not in themselves intended to kill anybody, and the weapons that BAE produces whose sole purpose is to kill people.
But it is of course subjective on whether you think killing Humans is unethical.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/06/bae-arms-trade
#14... BAE sell weapons to people who illegally kill civilians. THAT is unethical.
Been said so many times before but obviously needs repeating. The sole purpose of BAE is not to kill people. I'm sure all of you deluded idealists would love to see all our defense firms crumble under the might of your campaigning... but what would that mean for world stability? Underequipped peacekeeping forces (such as those on th Turkish/Kurdish/Iraqi border who rely on BAE equipment, A lack of defense infrastructure to guard against attack, an underequipped army, a statement to the world that britain is vulnerable and naive...
I know it's very unfashionable not to support idealist left-wing causes, but this one really does make no sense because it seems to rely on pacifism actually working. Of course when your ethics stem from the philosophy of john lennon when he was high, anything used in war is unethical. But I'd argue that enabling peacekeeping forces to stop insurgencies, civil war and genocide is a fairly ethical cause. If we stop investing we stop the possibility for relative peace and stability. So that's unethical too. Catch 22 really.
#17... as opposed to "legally" killing civilians? I'm sure that would be deemed "ethical."
#18 - let me reiterate three points already made in these commentsto counter that whole argument really:
Oh, and I think John Lennon maybe wasn't the first person to think of those ideas and his state of mind was inconsequential. Perhaps you might want to read some stuff that most people call "philosophy". (Ooooh, patronising! Like your whole John Lennon comment really...)
Whilst I may feel uneasy if I were to work for BAE myself, I can see they have a place in the world that is and will forever (unfortunately) be necessary. This whole argument isn't about the fact that they produce weapons in general but that they have a history of unethical dealing and business practice some of which enables serious human rights abuses and fuels some ongoing, unjust conflicts. I'm sure many of the students supporting this campaign would encourage the university to boycott investment in say, Nestlé or Syngenta.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report