Is the University a Place for Discussion and Learning or for Profiteering?

Today, the University of Guelph abruptly cancelled the “People’s Conference for Palestinian Solidarity,” organized by the UofG Palestine Students’ Body. No official reason was provided for this decision. However, UofG’s wishy-washy stance towards Palestine and the plight of its people ever since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza is a matter of public record.

Timeline: The university had received prior notice of the event and had approved it months earlier. Nevertheless, today, just four days before the conference was to begin, the institution reversed its decision and withdrew permission for the event. The students were caught off guard, having spent months organising, inviting approximately 400 attendees, and arranging for a panel of distinguished speakers from around the world.

This conference represented a significant opportunity for the university to uphold Canadian principles by promoting non-violent dialogue and showcasing how ideals of free speech and the rejection of violence prevail on its campus.

The Context: The term “university” means “community of teachers and scholars.” Notably absent from this definition are terms like “merchant” or “investor.”

However, it appears that the University of Guelph did not fully consider this definition before investing, according to its own records, $4.7 million in five companies that are directly or indirectly involved in the violence in Gaza. These companies include BAE Systems and Honeywell, both of which are known arms manufacturers that produce parts for Israeli jets and bombers. The other three companies are Siemens, AXA, and TEVA.

In March 2024, a student group called the “University of Guelph for Palestine” brought this issue to the attention of university officials, requesting that the institution distance itself from the genocide in Palestine by divesting from these companies. In response, the university administration formed an ad hoc “anonymous” committee to review this request. Not surprisingly, the committee concluded that no divestment was necessary because the complaint “did not meet the required criteria.” Unfortunately, the specifics of those criteria were never disclosed to the public or even to the complainants.

Of the 18 committee members, 15 voted against divesting from these companies. The justification given was that the invested amount was too small. It raises a pertinent question: why could the same argument not be applied to divest from these companies, suggesting that the profits involved were too insignificant to compromise the integrity of a reputable academic institution like UofG?

We may never know the answer to that question.