African Activist Archive

The leaflets states that the new Board policy says they will vote proxies for withdrawal of a company from South Africa if "The company's continued presence in South Africa does more to strengthen the apartheid regime that to contribute to the welfare of the nonwhites." Why have they voted against withdrawal when the overwhelming evidence indicates they do more harm than good in South Africa? The new Board policy rejects a request that the principal advisor on where to place its investments, the First National Bank of Chicago, he abandoned despite the fact that the bank has a vested interest in maintaining the apartheid system. The new Board policy rejects a suggestion that the university establish a committee of students, faculty, and administrators to examine the university links with apartheid. The new Board policy rejects suggestions that the Board cosponsor shareholder proposals to halt the payment of wages and salaries of solders fighting to preserve apartheid when they are on leave from corporations in which the University has investments. The new Board policy rejects suggestions that the Board cosponsor shareholder proposals asking that corporations stop financing pro-apartheid propaganda organizations such as the South African Foundation. The new Board policy even refuses to use the profits gained from corporate exploitation of Black South Africans for educational purposes directly related to informing people of conditions in South Africa. Why is the Board afraid to subject itself to questioning on its investments in South Africa? [Note: the Board is the Board of Director of the University of Illinois.]

African Activist Archive

Questions on the U of I's stocks in Companies doing Business in South Africa

Creator

Place Created

Date

Type of Item

Length/duration

Description

Organization

Coverage Africa

Language

Digital Format

Rights Management

Collection