Word: divest
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...failure of divestment to cause direct harm to apartheid is inextricably linked to its failure to make a truly effective symbolic statement. The symbolic value of divestiture would consist of a "headline splash" one time, and one time only. Furthermore, the absurd selectivity shown by divestiture advocates is truly appalling. If Harvard were to divest of all stock in companies which profit from profound "evil." It might be reduced to holding only domestically-chartered savings and loan stock. Everything from stock in companies which deal with the Soviet Union. Chile, EI Salvador, and Iran (among many others), or make nuclear...
HARVARD'S RECENT decision to divest form Baker International Corp. because of that company's failure to meet minimal guidelines promoting the status of Blacks in South Africa offered a rare bit of common ground in the campus divestiture debate. Those on both sides of the issue welcomed the step as a tangible demonstration--after years of inaction--that Harvard intends to follow its own rules when investing in companies that do business in South Africa. Not surprisingly, thought agreement ends there. For while opponents of view the ticker move as a drastic route to be pursued only after efforts...
...would like to applaud the editorial entitled "South Africa: Intensive Dialogue Can Work" in the Crimson. The opinion highlights the essential point in asserting that the Harvard Corporation should not divest of all its holdings in portfolio companies in South Africa. The "intensive dialogue" is real, not a whitewash. Harvard is clearly acting in good faith to its commitment to promote reform in the Aparthied state by recently divesting of a company failing to follow the Sullivan and Tutu Principles, Harvard has had a positive influence by keeping its hand in the situation by not turning is back...
Generally, however, we don't put such economic pressure on evil of divesting from all business in all objectionable geographical areas of the world, because that would be following moral outrage to its illogical conclusion. We do not boycott the American farmer because he sells wheat to the Soviet Union. We did not divest from companies that did business in the American South in the 1920s, when racism was institutionalized on a savage scale. And more realistically, we do not divest from companies doing business in Haiti. Chile. H Salvador, or a host of other nations, each with supported system...
...QUESTION here is not "Why divest?" that question has been answered again and again, usually very eloquently. The real question is "Why divest only?" Supporters of divestiture from South Africa to he morally consistent should work for other ways to overthrow apartheid such as loly bying and boycotting goods made by companies doing business there while at the same time demonstrating dissents with crud practices in all unjust parts of the world (including here in the United States). I do not pretend that, in their current inconsistency supporters of divestiture are therefore wrong because they probably are not But only...