University college to stop arms company investment
A college at a leading university has said it will no longer invest in arms companies following a number of student protests.
King's College, part of the University of Cambridge, said its governing body had voted to "adopt a new responsible investment policy" to align with the values of its community.
It comes after pro-Palestine protesters staged demonstrations and set up encampments against the war in Gaza at the university last year.
Stella Swain, youth and student officer at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said it was a "massive victory".
Student-led group Cambridge for Palestine has called on the university to divest from companies "complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine".
King's College's new financial investments will exclude companies that are involved in activities "generally recognised as illegal or contravening global norms, such as occupation", it said.
It will also exclude companies which produce military and nuclear weapons, weapons restricted by international treaty, or companies that produce key or dedicated components of such weapons.
The policy builds on discussions about the relationship between the college's investments and its values, which were "prompted by the occupation of Ukraine and Palestinian territories".
Gillian Tett, provost of King's College, said: "This is a positive result from a process that engaged voices from all areas of our community.
"I commend the members of the working group for their incredibly thoughtful engagement and deep commitment to work towards an approach that reflects the college's values and demonstrates our capacity to model transformation."
The college said the changes could be in place by the end of the year.
Ms Swain said: "This is a massive victory, and speaks to the incredible power and commitment of student campaigning, at King's College and across the country.
"If King's College, at the heart of Cambridge, can finally listen to its students and divest from the arms industry and companies complicit in the illegal occupation of Palestine, then every university can act to ensure they are on the right side of history."
Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Jeremy Bowen: Goodwill running out as UK, France and Canada demand Israel end Gaza offensive
Palestine Action sprays paint on Cambridge building
Gaza protest relocates outside graduation hall
Scores protest against Gaza war outside university
University of Cambridge
King's College Cambridge
Cambridge Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Detained Columbia graduate claims ‘irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release
NEW YORK — A Columbia graduate facing deportation over his pro-Palestinian activism on campus has outlined the 'irreparable harm' caused by his continued detention as a federal judge weighs his release. Mahmoud Khalil said in court filings unsealed Thursday that the 'most immediate and visceral harms' he's faced in his months detained in Louisiana relate to missing out on the birth of his first child in April. 'Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' the 30-year-old legal U.S. resident wrote. 'When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep.' He also cited potentially 'career-ending' harms from the ordeal, noting that Oxfam International has already rescinded a job offer to serve as a policy adviser. Even his mother's visa to come to the U.S. to help care for his infant son is also now under federal review, Khalil said. 'As someone who fled prosecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States,' he wrote. 'Why should protesting this Israel government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians result in the erosion of my constitutional rights?' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded that Khalil should simply self-deport, taking advantage of the administration's offer of $1,000 and a free flight to those in the country illegally that use its CBP Home app. Khalil obtained a green card, but the Trump administration says it is revoking it. Khalil's 13-page statement was among a number of legal declarations his lawyers filed highlighting the wide-ranging negative impacts of his arrest. Dr. Noor Abdalla, his U.S. citizen wife, described the challenges of not having her husband to help navigate their son's birth and the first weeks of his young life. Students and professors at Columbia wrote about the chilling effect Khalil's arrest has had on campus life, with people afraid to attend protests or participate in groups that can be viewed as critical of the Trump administration. Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey said the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil likely violates the Constitution. Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote the government's primary justification for removing Khalil — that his beliefs may pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy — could open the door to vague and arbitrary enforcement. Khalil was detained by federal immigration agents on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment, the first arrest under Trump's widening crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. Marcelo writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mahmoud Khalil offers declaration, describes damages to his life
June 6 (UPI) -- Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate detained by the Trump administration in March for deportation over his pro-Palestinian views, offered a public declaration that details what he's experienced since his arrest. In a case document filed Thursday, Khalil listed what he described as the "irreparable harms" he has suffered, which he claimed have affected several parts of his life that "include dignitary and reputational harm, personal and familial hardship, including constant fear for personal safety, continued detention, restrictions on my freedom of expression, and severe damage to my professional future." The declaration, which was made from inside the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, La., where Khalil has been held since March 9, puts focus on the birth of his son, which happened during his incarceration. "Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone." Khalil described. "I listened to her pain, trying to comfort her while 70 other men slept around me. When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep." Khalil described that the first time he saw his son was through a window, and the first time he held him was in an immigration courtroom, to which his wife had to travel ten hours to reach, with their newborn. "I speak to her as often as possible, but these conversations are not private, everything is monitored by the government," Khalil said, which makes it impossible for them to comfortably speak freely. "We leave so much unsaid, and that silence weighs heavily on both of us." Khalil said that not only has the situation been "devastating" for him, but that his wife has dealt with harassment since his arrest. Khalil further described the anguish of seeing Trump administration officials post statements and photos of him on social media that he purports as "accompanied by inflammatory language, grotesque and false accusations, and open celebration of my deportation." Khalil expressed concern for his future as well. He said he was hired by the nonprofit equality-focused Oxfam International group only days before his arrest as a Palestine and Middle East/ North Africa policy advisor, and was scheduled to start work in April, but the job offer was formally revoked. He says "I strongly believe" his arrest and continued detention is the reason for this. He added that should the charges against him stand, "the harm to my professional career would be career-ending." Khalil further worried his arrest would result in a lifetime of "being flagged, delayed, or denied when traveling, applying for visas, or engaging with consular authorities anywhere in the world," and not just him, but his wife and son. His mother had also applied for a visa in March to visit the United States to see their child be born, and although that was approved, the U.S. embassy returned her passport without a stamp, and now her case is under "administrative processing," and remains unapproved. Khalil's elderly father, whom he describes as "severely disabled," lives in Germany, and he ponders whether any country allied with the United States will ever grant him entry should the charges stand. Khalil detailed the allegations under which he has been held for deportation, which not only did he deny as testimony at his May immigration court hearing, at which he purports "The government attorneys did not ask me any questions regarding these issues." However, Khalil maintained his greatest concern of all is a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio based on a law that an "alien" can be deported should his presence in the United States "have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." "I understand that the Rubio Determination is not only a ground for deportation, but it is also a bar to entry," said Khalil. "In other words, no matter what happens to the other charge against me, it is the Rubio Determination that will make this country, the country of my wife and child, a country I cannot return to in the future."
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
There's Only One Question Here: Can Musk Bring Trump Down if He Wants?
For starters, I say Donald Trump is due our congratulations and respect. He finally found a white Afrikaner he'd like to throw out of the country. The early conventional wisdom on the Trump-Elon Musk divorce is that it was simultaneously shocking and inevitable. I suppose it was both of those things—Musk's fusillade of tweets Thursday was pretty shocking, especially the Jeffrey Epstein bomb; and it's true that this was bound to happen one day—no friendship between a ketamine-torqued egomaniac and a sociopathic liar with the emotional architecture of a 5-year-old is destined to go the distance. Taking a somewhat more historical perspective, this is the feud that Milton Friedman's America deserves. We've now lived through decades in which vast fortunes were amassed and lionized—and, importantly, at least in Trump's case, inherited and far too lightly taxed. Fred Trump gave Donald a reported $400 million when he died in 1999. Errol Musk was an emerald-mine magnate who once bragged that he had 'so much money we couldn't even close our safe,' though the extent to which he supported his son is a matter of heated debate (between them, mostly). Whatever the truth is there, the bottom line is that here we are, stuck with a crooked and stupid billionaire president and a crazed narcissist who could buy several countries fighting over which one has the purer, more Friedmansque-reactionary vision for what the United States should become. That's a crucial matter to which we'll return, but before we do that, let's indulge in the fun stuff and just cut to the chase: Does Musk have the goods to bring Trump down if he wants to? You should listen to my colleague Greg Sargent's interview with Rick Wilson on his podcast today (transcript here, if you prefer). Wilson is entertaining, as usual, but what's interesting is how his view of this goes against the conventional-wisdom grain. The emerging consensus is that Trump holds more cards here than Musk. He's the president, after all, and more than that, he is, as we know all too well, a president who's willing and eager to use the machinery of the state to settle personal scores. By this argument, Musk is in for weeks or months of hell if he doesn't take steps to tone this down. But to Wilson, 'Elon has more weapons here than Trump does.' Prominent among those, obviously, is Twitter. We all know what Musk has done with Twitter since buying it: He's reset the algorithms to elevate all manner of right-wing sewage—and to promote Donald Trump. What if Musk decides to reverse that? Most of the pro-Trump chatter on Twitter and other social media isn't coming from actual human beings. Most of it is coming from pro-Trump 'bot farms' that take over accounts or create fake ones for some specific purpose. Some estimates are that 73 percent of all internet traffic is bot-farm-initiated. (And isn't it lovely that up to three-quarters of what appears to be public opinion is totally faked by cynical and malicious people, if indeed it's even people behind it anymore?) Musk, Wilson told Sargent, could turn off the Trump bots in about three clicks. Doing that 'would change the political climate in this country almost instantaneously,' Wilson said. 'He could turn Twitter into a machine right now that will bash the tax bill.' Does that assign Twitter too much power? Could be. But if Twitter turns on Trump and the bill, the political world will notice. The dug-in MAGAs won't listen. But some of the non-MAGA people currently still saying they approve of Trump's job performance just might. Trump is still, astonishingly to me, polling in the mid-40s. If he drops down to 40, we're in a different political situation. Then there's the campaign. When Musk charges that Trump never would have won without his $290 million … well, that could be just a Johnson-measuring contest, in which case, who cares. But it's possible Musk knows something about how some of that money was spent. I mean, if I gave somebody $290 million for an important purpose, I'd want to know how it was spent. Maybe it was just spent on those anti-trans ads. But let's put it this way: We know Trump cheated in 2016. We know he's cheated all his life at everything. So he got a massive $290 million infusion in 2020 and thought, 'Let's be sure to spend every penny toward legitimate ends!' Seems unlikely. Finally, there's the nuclear bomb. Let's refresh our memories on the specific allegation against Trump with regard to Jeffrey Epstein. The week before the 2016 election, a woman who alleged that Trump raped her when she was 13 was about to hold a press conference and go public. She charged that Trump assaulted her four different times at parties thrown by Epstein. The media didn't take her allegations seriously at first because the woman allied herself with 'an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities,' as The Guardian put it. Then she hired lawyer Lisa Bloom—who had successfully sued the Boy Scouts, among others—and who is the daughter of Gloria Allred, who represented female accusers of Trump and Bill Cosby. The case was taken more seriously. The woman was ready to go public five days before the election, but she backed down after receiving many death threats. Trump, of course, denied the allegations. Does Musk know of actual evidence? He's not the world's most stable person either, so it's entirely possible that he's blowing smoke. Epstein once told Michael Wolff, 'I was Donald's closest friend for 10 years.' And Trump told New York magazine in 2002 that 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' We presume innocence in the United States, especially on so touchy a matter as this. But presuming innocence doesn't prevent us from wondering whether Musk is just trying to cause Trump maximum pain—or if he actually knows something. There were signs Friday morning that the feud was being turned down a notch or two. The White House was desperate for a meeting with Musk to cool the temperature—interesting in itself that it wasn't the other way around. So maybe Musk won't follow through on Thursday's threats. And who knows, with people this unstable, they could easily be BFFs again in six months. But any eulogy for this relationship must first and foremost be a eulogy for the United States of America. An amoral billionaire who by rights should have been impeached and barred from running for office for life became president again—legitimately this time, as far as we know—put the world's richest multibillionaire in charge of a sensitive task that he oversaw with the delicacy of a hyena stripping a wildebeest carcass clean. Their efforts have already resulted in deaths around the globe and will cause untold harm in this country over time. And now they're engaged in a 'substantive' argument that can be summarized like this. One, Trump wants a bill that is the usual Republican recipe for fiscal disaster—massive tax cuts for the rich, cuts to programs that helping working and poor people, huge deficits and debts as far as the eye can see. The other, Musk, at least professes to care about the deficits and debt, but he's totally chill with the massive tax cuts for the rich. He's just against the 'pork,' which is rich-man speak for things that might actually benefit people and communities. It's tragic that working Americans are held hostage to this madness. The small silver lining is the hope that Musk can make Trump's life as miserable as Trump can make his.
