Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ism780c.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.followup Subject: Re: good news... Message-ID: <1950@ism780c.UUCP> Date: Tue, 22-Apr-86 20:28:03 EST Article-I.D.: ism780c.1950 Posted: Tue Apr 22 20:28:03 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 24-Apr-86 06:42:47 EST References: <530@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1588@ism780c.UUCP> <280@parcvax.Xerox.COM> Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA Lines: 28 Xref: watmath net.politics:15241 net.followup:5957 In article <280@parcvax.Xerox.COM> bane@parcvax.Xerox.COM (John R. Bane) writes: > >They weren't just protesting apartheid, they were trying to get >Berkely to divest its South African investments. That IS doing >something constructive. > I don't think disrupting a school is constructive. If they want Berkely to divest, then they should convince the administration with rational arguments that it is in the interests of the school to do so. If the school does not agree with them, then they should refuse to associate with the school, not throw a tantrum. For example, if I found out that the supermarket I shop at ( Ralphs ) was helping to support apartheid, I would take my business to another supermarket, and let Ralphs know why. I would encourage other people to do the same. However, as long as investment in South Africa is legal, I think it would be wrong for me to try to physically prevent other people from shopping at Ralphs. The situation at a university is similar. These students were not forced to go to U.C.B. They are free to go to a school that does not support apartheid. They are also free to try to convince their Congressthings to pass laws making it illegal for U.S. corporations to invest in South Africa. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim