Socialize

FacebookTwitterRSS

Divestment debate continues

By

Stanford Students for Palestinian Equal Rights (SPER) hosted a divestment campaign event Wednesday evening in the Oak Lounge at Tresidder, attended by approximately 30 Stanford students, affiliates and community members.

 

The divestment campaign calls for Stanford to stop investing its endowment in companies that contribute to what the group labels “the oppression of the Palestinian people.”

 

Omar Shakir '07 addresses a Student for Palestinian Equal Rights (SPER) meeting in the Oak Lounge of Tresidder on Wednesday night. (MEHMET INONU/The Stanford Daily)

“Divestment is a tried and true tactic,” said founder and co-president Omar Shakir ’07. “It is a powerful symbol and the best non-violent method to effectuate change.”

 

The date of the event, Jan. 25, marked the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the Egyptian Arab Spring revolution.

 

“This choice of date was not a coincidence,” Shakir said, who is currently studying at Stanford Law School. “It fits in with our idea of grassroots movements and tackling human rights violations from the ground.”

 

The event started with a tribute to the Egyptian revolution followed by a PowerPoint presentation outlining the history of the conflict and the aims of the campaign.

 

The campaign calls on Stanford University to divest from eight specific companies: Ahava, Motorola, Roadstone Holdings, Riwal, Lockheed Martin, Mekorot, Caterpillar and Veolia Transportation, all of whom SPER claims either facilitate or support institutional discrimination, collective punishment, operation of Israeli-only settlements and maintenance of the separation barrier in the Palestinian territory.

 

Shakir founded the group, originally called Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel (SCAI), in the fall of 2006. They changed their name this year.

 

“The new name reflects a new strategic aim we have,” Shakir said. “There is now more of an awareness of the apartheid in Israel, so we have decided to focus on the rights of the Palestinians.”

 

SPER’s divestment campaign petition has over 1,000 signatures from Stanford students, faculty, alumni, affiliates and student organizations.

 

Shakir stated that Stanford has a policy to not invest in companies that engage in substantial social injury and claims the University has a history of divesting from companies that do.

 

Examples include divesting from Sinopec and PetroChina in May 2005 due to their involvement in the Darfur conflict and adopting an ethical investment policy toward conflict minerals in May 2010 due to the conflict in Congo.

 

Stanford students launched a successful divestment campaign during the apartheid in South Africa.

 

According to Shakir, the Board of Trustees has been receptive toward SPER’s message, and the group is preparing to make its first formal presentation to the Board at an undecided time this year.

 

Shakir emphasized that the organization’s current focus is to build awareness and mobilize different segments of the Stanford community before proceeding with the formal presentation to the Board.

 

The event ended with candid conversation and debate between audience members who posed questions and challenged each other.

 

“It was a very powerful presentation but definitely more than that; it’s a really important way that Stanford students can get involved in direct action,” said Anna McConnell ’14. “This is certainly something that we have the power and responsibility to do.”

 

“It educated me and inspired me to take action to help the campaign,” said audience member Karl Kumodzi ’14.

  • Michael

    When an event like a highly controversial and divisive divestment campaign occurs on campus, it should be the responsibility of the newspaper covering the events to
    imform the readers of the more mailcious roots and history of such campaigns, and to frame this event in a context so that it does not appear that the daily is blindly endorsing the radical views of the event hosts.

    It’s irresponsible reporting when the Daily blindly copies and pastes the propaganda put forth by any group, irrespective of the situation. I would expect a diversity of opinions cited in a ROTC event, an Occupy event, or an event on how I’ve got a really hot bod. I mean really, if I hosted an event on my smoking hot bod, and the daily covered it, would they just publish quotes like “according to Michael, his ‘bod is the hottest ever’” and then publish no opposing opinions from all the women who disagree? By hosting an event do I get a free Daily puff-piece? Is that how this works?

    It’s true, that the opinions expressed by the divesters are so radical that most informed readers will dismiss them without needing the opinions of the majority, kind of like an article on the westboro baptist church, but some of the students unfamiliar with the conflict will read this article as representative of the majority opinion and that’s irresponsible.

    If you are one of those who are not entirely comfortable with your understanding oft Israeli Palestinian conflict, I encourage you to research on your own because this article only serves to perpetuate ignorance. But you the reader should decide for yourself. Spend some time googling and talk to people on both sides.

    Also, I have the hottest bod ever. You don’t need google for that.

    Michael Constantine

  • Michael

    My apologies for the typos.

    -Michael

  • Raj

    Your comment is disrespectful, wayward and childish. You make unsubstantiated comments and your criticism is hollow and wrong.

    I think the author has done a terrific job of writing an article because she informs about an event, highlighting context, reaction and broader actions. The voice is objective, the piece is informative, and the construction of the writing is excellent for this kind of piece – the writer’s skills shines.
    You may have a hot bod, but your writing is terrible.