Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!bi50xrs
From: bi50xrs@sdcc3.UUCP (dragonpup)
Newsgroups: net.college
Subject: Re: Apartheid
Message-ID: <3093@sdcc3.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Nov-85 20:29:46 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.3093
Posted: Sat Nov 23 20:29:46 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 07:20:26 EST
References: <4982@stolaf.UUCP> <4992@stolaf.UUCP> <4993@stolaf.UUCP> <1021@lll-crg.ARpA>
Reply-To: bi50xrs@sdcc3.UUCP (dragonpup)
Distribution: net
Organization: lack of
Lines: 27

In article <1021@lll-crg.ARpA> neveu@lll-crg.UUCP (Charles neveu) writes:
>I have a question about divestment that I have never had answered to
>my satisfaction. It is this: Does divestment actually put any pressure
>on the companies which do business in South Africa, and hence, on the
>South African government? The answer to me appears to be no, for the
>following reasons. The University owns stock in IBM, which does
>business in South Africa. They divest themselves of the stock, which
>means they sell it to someone else at the Stock Market. The amount of
>IBM stock in circulation has not decreased one share. IBM doesn't know
>or care who owns their stock. It hasn't decreased their income one
>cent.  I don't mean to pick on IBM, I'm just using them as a generic and
>common example.
>						Charles

your argument (i really did read the rest of it) is completely
believable, except your first assumption.  what if the university
(any university) is actually funding a project for an IBM in
south africa ?  then if the university pulled out, the project
would be lost until an IBM found another grant.

more likely the reverse would happen.  
e.g.  if the physics dept had a grant from IBM to make this
      blaa-blaa thing and the university pulled out...
      then good-bye project.

either way, the research probably will get divested first.
Phil