THE UNIVERSITY'S Board of Visit-tors decided against addressing the Unocal shareholder resolution vote in its meeting last week. Unocal is an American oil company that has built a pipeline in Burma, a country currently ruled by an oppressive regime responsible for several human rights violations. Student Council drafted a 31-page motion, which solicited the University to vote in favor of a shareholder resolution that would make Unocal reveal all payments made to the present government of Burma. With the knowledge that this issue was not discussed, there is no indication of how the University will vote in the shareholder resolution. Although the Board hasn't acknowledged the importance of the Unocal resolution, it should be given further thought.
Without money, a government or any political entity basically is powerless. Since there is no private enterprise in Burma, all business deals must go through the government, including Unocal's. To avoid this concern, many companies including Reebok, Levi Strauss and J.Crew already have pulled out of Burma. It would be ideal if Unocal also would leave Burma and completely cut off its flow of revenue to the government. Unfortunately, Unocal holds major assets in the country and leaving them behind would be a major loss for the corporation.
The shareholder resolution comes as a measure to assess exactly how much revenue the Burmese government is receiving from Unocal. Though Unocal may not have anything to do with the actions of the regime, it is indirectly supporting the government and the government's actions through its investments.
The University has $2.1 million invested in Unocal. Since the Burmese government has been using its funds for vile purposes, some of the University's money probably is indirectly used in the funding of human rights violations. Because the University draws a portion of its budget from the tuition of students, it's also probable that students are inadvertently helping an oppressive regime.
The decision to discuss what the University's vote should be on the shareholders resolution should have been a moral one, if anything. Not only should the University at least know how much of its money is going toward an oppressive government, but it also owes that knowledge to the students who pay tuition - and might be indirectly funding the regime.
|
If the Board's moral obligation to the conscience of members of the University community was not sufficient reason to influence its discussion of the vote, then it should have considered the will of the students. Through Council, the student body asked the Board to vote for a disclosure of Unocal's investment history in Burma. Council's vote was almost unanimous, a clear indicator of the majority of students' wishes. Though the Board stated that the matter would be discussed in future meetings, it should have placed more emphasis on student opinion at the University and made the Burma issue more of a priority.
To justify its decision to not discuss the vote, Board Rector John P. Ackerly III wrote that he believed it was in the University's best interest to discuss issues related to education. This may be true, but there was no reason why the resolution could not have at least been mentioned briefly at the meeting. Education should take precedence in a Board meeting, but other important subjects should be given priority as well - especially when they affect not only every student here but also thousands of oppressed in Burma.
Ackerly also mentioned that, although he acknowledged that the circumstances in Burma were tragic, if he were to take a stance on the Burma issue, then he would have to take a stand on all atrocities the world over. This shouldn't be his stance because, unlike governmental mayhem in other parts of the world, the University holds a stake in the situation in Burma. Though the University may not be involved directly with the oppressive government and may not like what is going on in Burma, it still could be indirectly funding the government's acts.
It can be argued that pulling University funds out of Unocal will not solve the situation in Burma. But at least our money will not be contributing toward the oppression of the Burmese people. If those moral grounds were not enough for the Board to discuss the Unocal shareholder resolution vote, it should have thought of the wishes of the student body they represent. In any case, stalling the issue, as the Board is currently doing, is possibly the worst way of dealing with it.
(Alex Rosemblat is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 23 hours agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
