knutsonk@stolaf.UUCP (Kari E. Knutson) (11/20/85)
> > Here at St. Olaf, we are attempting to get our Board of Regents to > > divest all portions of the College's Endowment that are invested in > > companies with holdings in South Africa. > > Kari Knutson > > ...ihnp4!stolaf!knutsonk > > I would just like to point out that not every student at St. Olaf > is clamoring for divestment. I for one think the whole issue > is stupid. What is the point? Showing the world that St. Olaf > College will not stand for oppression in the world? Well, what > about the oppression of the Afghans, the Poles, etc. by the Soviet Union? > What about the way the Marxist government of Ethiopia is letting > its people starve to death (by failing to distribute the wealth > the world is trying to share with them)? My point is, if things > are so bad in South Africa, why are so many blacks from other > African nations trying to get into South Africa? > I'm not saying I'm in favor of apartheid--I think it's terrible. > But I don't understand the people who cry "U.S. out of Central America" > and then turn around and declare that the U.S. MUST intervene in South Africa. > ------------------------------ > Valerie Skala | If I can't do cartwheels, | > . . . !ihnp4!stolaf!skala | I don't want to go. | > ------------------------------ Looks like my article has served its purpose--generated discussion. I guess I'll have to say explicitly that I don't suffer from the delusion that I speak for all of the students at St. Olaf. However, since I haven't (lately) seen any "Don't Divest" rallies, I decided to speak about the active role we can play (divestment) rather than the passive one (non-divestment). While I support the action of divestment, I meant this to generate discussion, not to say that every one should think like me. And I want to know what the prevailing sentiment is at other colleges and universities on the net. > I am simply getting tired of the "Bitch America" sentiment that seems > so prevalent at St. Olaf. > .... The U.S. may have problems, that [but?] we are still better off > 3/4's of the rest of the world. I am not part of the "Bitch America" faction here, which by the way, I have not come in contact with. I love my country and wouldn't trade it, but I feel we have a responsibility to the rest of the world, precisely because we are "better off than 3/4's." My future lies here in this country but I am still not willing to accept blindly the values we display to the world. Americans consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, and as such need also to display less of an "America First" attitude. Kari Knutson ...inhp4!stolaf!knutsonk
neveu@lll-crg.ARpA (Charles Neveu) (11/21/85)
In article <4993@stolaf.UUCP> knutsonk@stolaf.UUCP (Kari E. Knutson) writes: > Here at St. Olaf, we are attempting to get our Board of Regents to > divest all portions of the College's Endowment that are invested in > companies with holdings in South Africa. > Kari Knutson > ...ihnp4!stolaf!knutsonk I have a question about divestment that I have never had answered to my satisfaction. It is this: Does divestment actually put any pressure on the companies which do business in South Africa, and hence, on the South African government? The answer to me appears to be no, for the following reasons. The University owns stock in IBM, which does business in South Africa. They divest themselves of the stock, which means they sell it to someone else at the Stock Market. The amount of IBM stock in circulation has not decreased one share. IBM doesn't know or care who owns their stock. It hasn't decreased their income one cent.Consequently, this action has had no influence on IBM's policies, nor on the policies of the South African government. Furthermore, if IBM ever cared what the University's position on investment in South Africa was, it certainly doesn't now. In fact, it would seem that if one wanted to affect IBM's policies, one should OWN the stock, go to the shareholder's meetings, and make a ruckus. I can foresee a few rebuttals to this. First, divestment is purely symbolic. It makes news and keeps the situation in S.A. in the public's mind. Second, selling the shares may lower the price of the stock on the market, which may affect the amount of capital IBM can raise in future stock offerings, which would certainly influence them. My response to the former is that as a symbolic act, it is still inefficient, and chaining onself to the S.A consulate would equally effective. My response to the latter is that the companies usually mentioned, like IBM, are so large that even the largest university endowment controls only a fraction of a percent of the stock, and that the effect on the price would be miniscule and temporary. I don't mean to pick on IBM, I'm just using them as a generic and common example. Charles
gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) (11/22/85)
In article <4993@stolaf.UUCP>, knutsonk@stolaf.UUCP (Kari E. Knutson) writes: > > > Here at St. Olaf, we are attempting to get our Board of Regents to > > > divest all portions of the College's Endowment that are invested in > > > companies with holdings in South Africa. > > > Kari Knutson > > > ...ihnp4!stolaf!knutsonk > > > > I would just like to point out that not every student at St. Olaf > > is clamoring for divestment. I for one think the whole issue > > .......and on, and on > > Looks like my article has served its purpose--generated discussion. > I guess I'll have to say explicitly that I don't suffer from the > ......and on, and on Folks, this is net.college. While I agree that aparteid is a burning issue on college campuses these days (even here at MIT), and the discussion of what your college is doing about it, the protests, what the administration does about it, etc, are well and good, discussion on the RIGHTS and WRONGS of aparteid DO NOT BELONG HERE. They could easily fill up this group, casting out the people who don't want to deal with it. I hope people will reply to all pro/con apartied stuff to net.politics, or net.apartied, if it exists. When I first saw the aparteid articles showing up I worried that this was going to happen. Perhaps this will help to slow it down. -Andy -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew S. Gerber MIT '87 Systems Manager, Visible Language Workshop | | gerber@mit-athena.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.MIT.EDU | | {decvax, mit-eddie}!mit-amt!gerber {decvax, mit-eddie}!mit-athena!gerber | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
derek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) (11/22/85)
> > I have a question about divestment that I have never had answered to > my satisfaction. It is this: Does divestment actually put any pressure > on the companies which do business in South Africa, and hence, on the > South African government? The answer to me appears to be no... I think you are missing the point. It is symbolic, as you mentioned later in your letter, but it is also much simpler. The way the US works (in part) is that if I think something is Good, then I support it. If I think it is Bad, then I do not. If enough people at a university think that the regime in SA is Bad, then that university should not support it in any way. In this fashion, the things that the majority of Americans think are Good get supported and those we think are Bad do not. derek -- Derek Zahn @ wisconsin ...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek derek@wisc-rsch.arpa
bi50xrs@sdcc3.UUCP (dragonpup) (11/24/85)
In article <1021@lll-crg.ARpA> neveu@lll-crg.UUCP (Charles neveu) writes: >I have a question about divestment that I have never had answered to >my satisfaction. It is this: Does divestment actually put any pressure >on the companies which do business in South Africa, and hence, on the >South African government? The answer to me appears to be no, for the >following reasons. The University owns stock in IBM, which does >business in South Africa. They divest themselves of the stock, which >means they sell it to someone else at the Stock Market. The amount of >IBM stock in circulation has not decreased one share. IBM doesn't know >or care who owns their stock. It hasn't decreased their income one >cent. I don't mean to pick on IBM, I'm just using them as a generic and >common example. > Charles your argument (i really did read the rest of it) is completely believable, except your first assumption. what if the university (any university) is actually funding a project for an IBM in south africa ? then if the university pulled out, the project would be lost until an IBM found another grant. more likely the reverse would happen. e.g. if the physics dept had a grant from IBM to make this blaa-blaa thing and the university pulled out... then good-bye project. either way, the research probably will get divested first. Phil
rob@nitrex.UUCP (rob robertson) (11/25/85)
In article <4992@stolaf.UUCP> skala@stolaf.UUCP (Valerie Skala) writes: >I would just like to point out that not every student at St. Olaf >is clamoring for divestment. I for one think the whole issue >is stupid. What is the point? Showing the world that St. Olaf >College will not stand for oppression in the world? >My point is, if things >are so bad in South Africa, why are so many blacks from other >African nations trying to get into South Africa? Probably to eat. Some people make that choice freedom or eating. I don't think they should be faced with that choice. >I'm not saying I'm in favor of apartheid--I think it's terrible. >But I don't understand the people who cry "U.S. out of Central America" >and then turn around and declare that the U.S. MUST intervene in South Africa. I have yet to hear anyone say we should militarily move into S. Africa intervene. All I've heard is divestment talk, which in my opinion is quite similar to the conservative 'if they advertise during that evil tv program we'll boycott them'. There is a big difference between giving someone guns and not giving them your business. >I may be conservative, but I am NOT a fascist (I don't think >most people even understand what that word means, and yet >I've been called that by some of the bleeding heart liberals on campus.) 'Fascist' and 'Bleeding heart liberal'. Funny how people pick names to describe the other side. >The U.S. may have problems, >that we are still better off than 3/4's of the rest of the world. Yeah, we are, but with attitudes like yours it seems (to me) that were trying our damnest to keep the other 3/4 of the world down there. When I look at things like the Decaration of Independence and the Constitution, it says EVERYONE is free not just Americans, that EVERYONE should have and opportunity to succecede not just Americans. I wish American conservative doctrine would be based on these documents. -- rob robertson decvax!cwruecmp!nitrex!rob.UUCP (216) 791-0922 cbosgd!nitrex!rob.UUCP nitrex!rob@case.CSNET nitrex!rob%case@csnet-relay.ARPA