Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Is it right for universities to invest in the arms industry?

I have just found out that my uni (Swansea), as well as some others, invest millions of pounds of our tuition fees in cluster bombs, land mines and other assorted nasties.

I'm sure you can all guess my view, what's yours?

Yikes, where did you find that out from?

Same as yours I expect.

Hendrik wrote:Is it right for universities to invest in the arms industry?

I have just found out that my uni (Swansea), as well as some others, invest millions of pounds of our tuition fees in cluster bombs, land mines and other assorted nasties.

I'm sure you can all guess my view, what's yours?

Can you elaborate Hendrik?

How do they do it?

The dastardly Welsh! When you say that they invest in these horrific weapons how do you mean exactly, Hendrik? Is there an 'adopt a landmine' or 'sponsor an RPG' appeal advertised on campus?

I work in researching investments etc for charities which universities are and its amazing what so many do have investments in. Each charity has to have an investment policy that reflects their objectives etc as a charity and will state whether or not they have a large stance against an area, for example environmental charities will not invest in companies that destroy it.

Therefore if the university does not have a stance against fire arms etc they can tehnically if they want to invest. Fund Managers will do as asked so if the charity doesnt ask for something to excluded then they will invest if it meets thecriteria. Which is why so many charities are going for ethical/social investment funds

And it's also often surprising where Universities get their funding from for certain projects.

I don't think I want my illusions shattered so I won't go too far into this one, do they really do all this stuff?

Hendrik wrote:Is it right for universities to invest in the arms industry?

I have just found out that my uni (Swansea), as well as some others, invest millions of pounds of our tuition fees in cluster bombs, land mines and other assorted nasties.

I'm sure you can all guess my view, what's yours?

You'd be amazed how many companies have some involvement in the arms trade - Mercedes Benz (and others) make lorries - lorries can be used for carrying people - people include soldiers - soldiers kill peeps .....
I was involved with a major pharmaceuticals company which was not involved in the arms trade (apart from presumably supplying antibiotics anaesthetics and the like); they allowed a staff member to set up an arms length subsidiary which sourced non-group materials (like dentists sterilising equipment) and sold them. One early product was used to protect soldiers - would you ban the parent company?

There are some which are more openly / obviously involved; BAE make aircraft parts and (do or are hoping to) refit US army vehicles.

Where do you draw the line????? This is the classic problem.

I was informed of this by Campaign Against the Arms Trade on campus. They're a pretty big organisation with lots of pretty big names on board and tend to know what they're talking about.

Blondie, I know they're allowed to, otherwise they wouldn't (couldn't get away with it). Anyone can legally invest in the arms trade, infact I'm sure the government would go out of their way to help you do it. My question is, is it ethical to do so?

Where would I draw the line? Good question, as with almost everything in this universe it isn't black or white, but on a continuum. However, when the company's primary source of income (and thus raison d'etre) is from making things which kill people, I think we can safely call them arms dealers.

Two names which I've heard so far are Rolls Royce (yes, they make exceedingly posh cars, but make a lot more military aircraft) and BAE aka British Aerospace.

Hendrik wrote:I was informed of this by Campaign Against the Arms Trade on campus. They're a pretty big organisation with lots of pretty big names on board and tend to know what they're talking about.

Blondie, I know they're allowed to, otherwise they wouldn't (couldn't get away with it). Anyone can legally invest in the arms trade, infact I'm sure the government would go out of their way to help you do it. My question is, is it ethical to do so?

Where would I draw the line? Good question, as with almost everything in this universe it isn't black or white, but on a continuum. However, when the company's primary source of income (and thus raison d'etre) is from making things which kill people, I think we can safely call them arms dealers.

Two names which I've heard so far are Rolls Royce (yes, they make exceedingly posh cars, but make a lot more military aircraft) and BAE aka British Aerospace.

Just a point on Rollers - afaik, the company who make the cars and the company that makes the jet engines are now too different things...

Armaments in gerneral is a very volatile subject.

HOWEVER.......................

land-mines and cluster bombs are highly indiscriminate. Whatever you thought of Princess Di, she had the right idea.

Anyway, Fiona got my vote -AGAIN !!

Great Plum wrote: Just a point on Rollers - afaik, the company who make the cars and the company that makes the jet engines are now too different things...

Not too different - just enough, probably!

Anyway, all these things are called defence systems, aren't they? So that's all right, then.........

Richard Ruck wrote:

Great Plum wrote: Just a point on Rollers - afaik, the company who make the cars and the company that makes the jet engines are now too different things...

Not too different - just enough, probably!

I'm sure I wrote two! LOL