BU Today
After a protracted deliberation that spanned two meetings of the
Board of Trustees, the Board’s Executive Committee has decided not to
adopt a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI) that the University divest from civilian firearms manufacturers.
Robert Knox (CAS’74, GSM’75), chair of the Board of Trustees and of
the Executive Committee, described the deliberation as “a big sprawling
discussion that reflected a full spectrum of opinions.” When the Board
did not find the “overwhelming consensus” required to support the
proposal, the issue was referred to the Board’s 14-member Executive
Committee, which determined that it should not be adopted.
The recommendation that “Boston University will prohibit new and
divest of any existing direct investments in civilian firearm
manufacturers until, in the University’s judgment, a level of state
and/or federal regulatory control over firearm sale and/or ownership is
achieved that merits repeal of this policy” is the first proposal to the
Board from the ACSRI, which was established two years ago as an
interface between the BU community and the Board of Trustees. The
trustees first discussed divestment from gun manufacturers in the wake
of the shooting of 20 schoolchildren and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook
Elementary School in Connecticut in December 2012, before the ACSRI has
been established. The issue was brought to the Board by the ACSRI in May
of last year, and was the subject of comprehensive debate at Board
meetings in September and December.
Wait till a few wealthy liberal alumni learn about this. Donations will plummet and the board will reconsider.
I love it--"ruthless gun manufacturers." Pure comedic gold, Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteI know. As if gun manufacturers are forcing investment groups to by their stock by gunpoint.
DeleteNo, it's not that. Gun manufacturers lobby for weak gun laws so that their product can be disseminated as widely as possible including among criminals and the mentally ill. That's ruthless.
DeleteGun manufacturers lobby for weak gun laws so that their product can be disseminated as widely as possible including among criminals and the mentally ill.
DeleteThe real power of "the gun lobby" comes from millions of concerned Americans unaffiliated with gun manufacture (except as consumers).
That doesn't quite add up Kurt when even a majority of NRA members have no problem with laws like background checks. Lobbyists are trying to defeat laws their members have no problem with.
DeleteLobbyists are trying to defeat laws their members have no problem with.
DeleteIf investors have a moral duty to divest themselves of investments in that which is morally wrong, because to fail to do so is to tacitly support the supposed immorality, then certainly members of a lobbying organization are at least tacit supporters of whatever positions that lobbying organization represents.
??? Kurt, like I just said these lobbyists are lobbying against laws their members are not against, so who are they representing?
Delete??? Kurt, like I just said these lobbyists are lobbying against laws their members are not against, so who are they representing?
DeleteSo you say. Funny how you claim to know what "the gun lobby's" members want, given the fact that the NRA and other gun rights advocacy organizations don't share their membership data with third parties.
But never mind that, and let's for the sake of argument assume that it's true that the gun rights organizations' membership overwhelmingly supports laws that the groups are lobbying against. If so--if these members perceive that their interests are not being represented, they'll drift away.
Strange that we haven't been seeing anything of the kind.
I guess you missed the multiple polls of NRA members and other pro gun groups saying they have no problem with background checks, yet, their lobbyists are busy lobbying against background checks.
DeleteI guess you missed the multiple polls of NRA members and other pro gun groups saying they have no problem with background checks . . .
DeleteI saw the claims, but there's no way to verify that the respondents truly were NRA members (or members of other gun rights advocacy groups). But again, if members reach the conclusion that the organization is not representing their interests well enough, they'll either force change from within, or leave.
I haven't seen any sign of either happening. Have you?
If a large enough number of members doesn't approve of the activities, then that can change them by voting in new members to the board of directors. In fact, I've already started seeing articles discussing new candidates and those who want to be reelected.
DeleteOr they can do what I do and spend their money where they wish, perhaps with another pro-gun group that advocates for additional gun laws. I guess one question is, are there any out there? I have to say, I haven't heard of any. Has anyone else heard of any?
Maybe it's possible that most of the NRA members do not subscribe to some of the more extreme policy decisions. But that's not enough to turn them away. They're still for gun rights, just not as extreme as the leadership.
DeleteBut that's not enough to turn them away.
DeleteSo these notional lukewarm gun rights advocate NRA members disagree with the leadership's "extreme" positions, but not intensely enough to do anything about it? That sounds like a demographic that can be safely ignored, doncha' think?
Wow Kurt, you want to claim these polls are lies, but expect us to believe the polls and facts you post to verify your pro gun positions are factual?
DeleteSS, why do people vote against their own self interests? I don't know, but I do know group think makes people do all sorts of things that are not in their self interests. Why did Americans vote for a party that took us from one trillion in debt, to 12 trillion in debt? I have no clue, but I call them stupid.
How do you explain why a million more people jumped on board while the NRA was fighting these new proposals?
DeleteWow Kurt, you want to claim these polls are lies . . .
DeleteAs has come to be the expectation with you, wrong. I said that the veracity of the polls cannot be known.
. . . but expect us to believe the polls . . .
What polls have I posted?
. . . and facts . . .
Yes, I do expect you to believe facts. Well, no, come to think of it--I don't expect you, personally to believe facts. That would clearly be asking far too much of you.
"SS, why do people vote against their own self interests? I don't know, but I do know group think makes people do all sorts of things that are not in their self interests."
DeleteEvery individual gets to determine their own self interest. Just because you don't like their decision doesn't make it wrong.
I guess that explains why Republicans vote against issues, they voted for, before Obama was president. Just to obstruct, no matter what the damage to the country. Like I said, I have no clue why people vote against their own interests, you claim they don't and I just disagree with them So how do they end up disagreeing with themselves?
DeleteMaybe they just change their mind. For example, Republicans and Democrats voted in favor in military intervention in the middle east. Turns out badly. Now a Democratic President is wanting to intervene militarily in the middle east, and some are saying "not so fast".
DeleteIs it because of the President's party? Or is it because they learned because it didn't go well the first time?
Sorry SS, "just changed their minds" is BS, they still believe in their Republican principles. Are you dumb, just being your smart ass self, or totally lying?
Delete"Republicans and Democrats voted in favor in military intervention in the middle east. "
DeleteYes, because they were lied to by the White House. Can you imagine what Fox News would do if the Obama White House did such a thing?
Politicians lie? I'm shocked!
Delete"Every individual gets to determine their own self interest."
Delete"Maybe they just change their mind"
"Politicians lie? I'm shocked"
Maybe you should make up your mind which ridiculous excuse you want to use and stop being so dishonest just to try and prove your false point.
"Wait till a few wealthy liberal alumni learn about this. Donations will plummet and the board will reconsider. "..... Ya thats the same attitude Bloomberg and his minions had toward Kroger...Not everyone can be intimidated.
ReplyDeleteIt's not intimidation. It's morality and common sense.
DeleteIt's not intimidation.
DeleteWell, in the case of Kroger, it appears not to be successful intimidation, anyway. I suppose that by your standards and Sammy's, laughably ineffectually attempted intimidation doesn't count.
I thought your side generally opposed legislating morality, or is that another of those things that depends on the issue at hand?
Delete"It's not intimidation. It's morality and common sense." Thanks for the laugh Mike
DeleteWhat's funny? It is morality and common sense that should determine which companies to invest in. Many people are opposed to Monsanto or the bit pharmaceutical concerns and wouldn't invest in them. Same goes for the despicable gun manufacturers who don't give a fuck about the well being of the general population, but only about making as much money as possible.
DeleteWhats funny is that you really do believe that others should live their lives based on what you believe to be moral and common sense. So do you believe that people are immoral who are invested in companies and industries that you find to be immoral Mike? ....because that would likely include most of the population of the US including most if not all members of all three branches of Gov as well as most of Europe and the organizations that they financially and militarily support
Delete" you really do believe that others should live their lives based on what you believe to be moral and common sense."
DeleteWhere the hell did you get that from. What I said is " It is morality and common sense that should determine which companies to invest in. " There's no mention in there of my determining what that is for others.
" It is morality and common sense that should determine which companies to invest in. "......People do use their own moral compass to make such decisions even if you do not agree with those decisions
DeleteThat of course is assuming that the alumni themselves have gone to the trouble to divest. I just read an interesting article linked from the above listed advisory committee authored by someone who is both in favor of semiautomatic firearm bans, and against divestment. And he does it on Constitutional grounds because he recognizes that like it or not, Heller is the law of the land at present,
ReplyDelete"The risk is that such pressure is brought at the risk of chilling the exercise of constitutional rights—which now include the ownership and possession of at least some guns, as the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller. Whether or not we agree with the court’s reading of the Second Amendment’s highly ambiguous language, Heller is now the law, and Americans have the right to bear some arms under some circumstances."
"Divestment actions, boycotts, and blacklists aimed at chilling the exercise of a constitutional right—whether it be the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, or the right to choose to have an abortion—can create a dangerous precedent. During the McCarthy period, blacklists and Red Channels, both enforced by private companies with the encouragement of some government entities, were economic tactics calculated to punish artists for the exercise of their First Amendment right to assemble with others in order to redress grievances. Leftists who exercised their constitutional right to refuse to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee were called “Fifth Amendment Communists” and were denied employment and subjected to other economic sanctions."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/cerberus-divestment-decision-is-a-risky-way-to-combat-gun-violence.html
""Divestment actions, boycotts, and blacklists aimed at chilling the exercise of a constitutional right—whether it be the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, or the right to choose to have an abortion—can create a dangerous precedent."
DeleteWhat BS. The right to protest, boycott, not contribute, or buy a different product is as American as it gets. It's a free choice if I won't contribute to anything, or buy something because I disagree with the way they invest the money I might have given them. It's also common practice in the investment world. It's a capitalist/profit system and money talks. Any entity, or individual can state why, or why not to invest in anything; and they can also set guidelines on when, or why they made that decision. The lesson of McCarthyism is that even though it was legal to not hire someone based on their politics, it was wrong. Lots of things that are legal are wrong. A lesson that has not yet been understood by gun loons.
Sandra, you indicate by your statements (and insults) that you cant differentiate the differences of right, wrong, legal and illegal. Maybe you need to go back to school and get some lessons. Fresh ones.
DeleteYou know, Sandra, even though I don't support this divestment push, I was with you on the defense of the right to divest, boycott, etc. You laid it out perfectly: it's people's right to do it, and it's an appropriate part of a free market wherein one is free to put their money to the uses they choose to.
DeleteAnd then your internal consistency went right out the dang window with your sentence about McCarthyism and how wrong it was for people not to want to buy screenplays from Communists, etc. How do those not fall under the same rubric of freedom to invest as one pleases?
I agree Sandra, everyone has that right. I brought it up because it was interesting that the committee actually posted opinions of both sides of the argument.
DeleteYou gun loon clowns complain about insults, STFU, don't spew insults and you won't get any. You missed the lesson SJ, no surprise.
DeleteMaybe the wealthy alumni have heard about it and aren't as anti gun as you want them to be Mike. It may be that the alumni recognize a good investment when they see one. They actually may be smart enough to know that the gun cant be blamed, just the person using it.
ReplyDeleteCould be.
DeleteThey didn't stop donating when the University decided not to divest after Sandy Hook--why do you think they'll care more about divestment now?
ReplyDelete