Being a first-year student at the University of Connecticut, there is a lot to figure out. How to use Husky Bucks and points, where the best dining hall is, which classes to take and where to stand on political issues. Due to the extent of influence that political issues have on our daily lives today, I have been paying most of my attention to this aspect of campus life. The issue of divestment, especially pertaining to investments related to the genocide in Gaza, has been a prominent issue that I have seen being discussed frequently. While it is an important matter to many people on campus, I feel as though in the past I had not received the proper education to take a stance on the issue. I had only seen the protests covered by the news and heard of the movement in a negative light. Thus, I have taken time here to research what exactly is going on. Why do students want to divest? What would really change? Let us unpack the issue and explain why divestment is something that all students should stand for.
What is the issue?
UConn Divest is demanding that UConn divest from defense contractors and companies based in Israel. However, they are not being listened to. Instead, UConn has arrested students protesting against its continued investment in these companies. Most notably, this occurred at the protest encampment in May 2024 with 25 students and one alum being taken into custody. Along with this, there have been several instances where our university’s president, Radenka Maric, has supported Israel. For instance, in February 2022, Maric and Gov. Ned Lamont made an agreement with Israel to sign a Memorandum of Agreement with Technion, the Israel Institue of Technology. Furthermore, in an email from Maric in attempting to remain neutral in discussing the Israeli oppression of Palestinians she consequently wrote how she stands for the oppression.
UConn Foundation says that their investments, which are untouchable to students, are made with the combination of several sources of funds. There has been no action to look at whether the companies have branches in defense, security or aerospace areas of business. Thus, they have done nothing about the students’ demands related to this issue. That is why we continue to protest.
Why we need to divest and who it would be from
We need to divest from defense contractors. This would include General Dynamics, a global aerospace and defense company; RTX, a business with commercial aerospace and defense industries; and Lockheed Martin, a global security, defense, and aerospace contractor. The groups function as some of the top employers of UConn graduates and give funds to our university’s research facilities.
While this would cause complications for UConn’s finances, it is crucial that our university does so. UConn is currently complicit in the violence and mass atrocities seen in Gaza by remaining in these contracts.This is due to the United States’ long standing history with providing billions of dollars worth of missile defenses, advanced military equipment, and the Iron Dome. This history is supported by historical documents such as the Excess Defense Articles program and many bilateral defense cooperation agreements dating all the way back to 1952. Along with this, Israel has become the “the leading global recipient of Title 22 U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program” a 10-year plan formalized by the Memorandum of Understanding.
UConn has their own specific history with Israel which our university needs to look at and divest from. Over the years, UConn has “fostered a dynamic and multifaceted relationship with Israel, cultivating partnerships in academia, sports and business.” This is seen in the many collaborations with Israel’s leading research universities, the facilitation of student exchanges, the collaboration of faculty, and knowledge sharing across borders. While this has benefited our university for years, we should not continue to foster a relationship with murderers who have killed over 39,000 Palestinians; about 15,000 children; and has ethnically cleansed about 90% of the population from their homes.
What these divestments will look like
The problem is that the investments made by our university are so complex that for a divestment to occur, the administration would have to look at the several investments they have made in specific detail. This is due to several sources of funding for our university and many investments involving more than one company who may have ties with more than one area of business. Thus, it is hard to know how our university would be impacted by these divestments.
For a true divestment to occur there will need to be a plan in place with replacements for what the university will lose. This may look like a stronger partnership with the countries we are already aligned with, such as Germany, South Africa, Costa Rica and France. In an extreme manner, the effort to reallocate funds may look like the privatization of UConn as a university. This would mean forgoing a substantial amount of state funds so that UConn can gain freedom from state control.
Divestment is a complicated process, but UConn has been done before. In 1986, UConn sold $217,000 in stocks that were companies that did business with South Africa due to them being an apartheid state. It is in the act of divestment that UConn stood against the racial segregation enforced by the government. It was important to take a stand. The time is now to do the same thing and take a stand against a genocide of innocent people.
So, the question is, does UConn really stand for human rights? Our university has claimed to be dedicated to ensuring and upholding human rights as has been seen in many ways. For instance, our university’s Human Rights Institute is recognized as a national leader in being one of the largest interdisplnary programs on the subjct. Over a million dollars has been put into establishing human rights programs, institutes, and initiatives on campus. However, if UConn remains complicit in the genocide of Gaza, these efforts for human rights might as well be futile.
Divest yourself from UConn. Your tuition pays for this.
The article’s advocacy for divestment from companies involved in producing defensive systems like Israel’s Iron Dome is shockingly irresponsible and dangerous. By calling for divestment from companies that develop crucial defensive measures, the author fails to acknowledge the necessity of these technologies in protecting innocent civilians from the constant threat of rocket attacks by terrorist groups. The Iron Dome is not an aggressive weapon—it is a shield that has saved countless lives by intercepting indiscriminate rocket fire aimed at civilian populations.
To suggest divesting from companies involved in producing such life-saving defense systems reflects a gross misunderstanding of the conflict and a disturbing bias. The author’s rhetoric indirectly legitimizes the brutal and terroristic actions witnessed on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a violent assault on Israeli civilians, resulting in the loss of innocent lives. By downplaying or ignoring the necessity of these defensive measures, the article borders on endorsing a worldview where the safety of civilians—both Israeli and Palestinian—is treated as expendable in pursuit of a narrow political agenda.
What’s more troubling is the reductionist framing of these defense contractors as nothing but instruments of violence. This fails to consider the broader context: many of these companies develop technologies that serve humanitarian purposes, disaster response, and defense, making the world safer. By focusing solely on their involvement in conflicts, the article glosses over the lives saved and protected by these technologies.
In essence, this piece not only sympathizes with forces intent on destabilizing the region but also undermines efforts to protect innocent lives from terrorism. Fostering such a dangerous and narrow narrative disregards the complexity of international relations and the difficult choices nations must make to safeguard their citizens. This article is not just advocating for divestment; it is advocating for disarmament in the face of terrorism, leaving civilians at the mercy of those who target them indiscriminately.
The ICJ would have called for a unilateral ceasefire if it had determined that a genocide was taking place in Gaza. It didn’t make any such determination. The chief justice of the ICJ said that Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide. It did not say that the claim of genocide was plausible.
Didn’t the Daily Campus just report that UConn Divest has been spreading antisemitic drawings?
Ms. Donahue, this isn’t going to age well. UCONN Divest has been discredited as an antisemitic organization. Get far away from it. If you want to support Palestinian Arab rights, speak about against Hamas and call for the return of hostages so the Gaza conflict can end. Seek reforms in Palestinian society to make it more socially liberal and release it from the grip of jihadist Hamas and corrupt Palestinian Authority alike. Innocent Palestinian Arab civilians are victimized more by their own leadership than by Israel. If you care about principals and human life, your efforts will be more impactful fighting the ACTUAL genocide happening in Sudan right now. Or Syria, or Yemen- all a stones throw from Gaza and with body counts and human misery unfortunately 3-10x what you’re seeing in Gaza (based on your own numbers).
Amen! Thank you for your comments. Sadly I doubt that your wise words will resonate with Ms Donahue or her narrow minded and ignorant ilk at the DC.
If this writer and the organization she supports had their way, those 180 ballistic missiles that Iran fired at Israel yesterday would not have been intercepted, and would have caused an enormous amount of death and destruction. What the divestment movement ultimately wants is for Israel, and more than half of world Jewry, to be defenseless. (And that’s putting it mildly.) There is a word for wanting to wipe out more than half of world Jewry: genocide.