University of Cambridge staff and students yesterday (22/06) participated in an open meeting about “investments in, and research funded by, companies belonging to the defence industry”. 

The meeting was organised by the University’s working group on the same issue. The group, which was established in July 2024, is headed by Professor Graham Virgo.

The meeting was described by Virgo as a “listening session,” in which University students and staff members could participate. 

A staff member began the meeting by outlining the importance of values such as democracy and freedom of speech, which she said must be “actively defended”. She added: “If liberal democracies are to survive, we need more defence funding, not less,” continuing: “National defence is not unethical.”

A representative of the Cambridge UCU stated that “civic institutions,” such as the University of Cambridge, have “obligations” not to “aid and abet”  violence against Palestinians. She added that she was “very surprised” that the Cambridge branch of the UCU had not been approached by the working group, highlighting that the branch on Wednesday (18/06) passed a motion on “military spending, research, and opposing the drive to war”.

A staff member from the History faculty argued that it is “in line with the University’s purposes” not to fund research linked to arms, while a University researcher claimed that the University “should play a role in defending the UK”.

One PhD student argued that greater distinction is needed between “defence” and “offence,” arguing that the topic at hand is the “arming [of] an occupying force” rather than “the UK’s defence of itself”. She accused the University of “putting profits before people,” and “power before responsibility,” adding: “Arab life to this University is unworthy of grief.”

A Chemical Engineering student emphasised how his faith as a Muslim influences his stance on the University’s relationship to defence companies. He explained that a central part of Islam is considering matters “on an ethical and moral basis,” adding that he has been “constantly questioning [himself]” for studying at a university which is “constantly aiding and abetting genocide”.

A student, who identified himself as Jewish, said that the emphatic focus on the UK and its need to defend itself leads to “clear racism and dehumanisation” towards Palestinians. He added that “clarity” is needed about research partnerships, particularly pointing to BAE Systems and Rolls Royce, who he described as “heavily involved in supplying the Israeli military,” stating that these relationships “need to be addressed”. The student stated that the University “should not be collaborating with companies that directly profit off killing”.

Meanwhile, a PhD student in the Engineering department said that divestment from defence companies “risks undermining Britain’s own defence,” given that these companies supply the British military. He added that it should be up to the “individual conscience of the researcher” to decide which companies to work with, rather than the University being responsible for institution-wide divestment.

One student, who said he has relatives in Gaza, said that there is already a “precedent” for divesting within the University, pointing to King’s College. He described the conflict he feels as a Cambridge student and as someone with relatives in Gaza, stating he would “sleep more at ease” if the University were to divest.

A University of Cambridge academic, who works with Rolls Royce, explained that he is part of efforts to make the company more sustainable. He claimed that divesting completely from such companies could hinder efforts to alleviate the climate crisis, saying that rather than “[disengaging] to make a point,” it is more effective to “engage to make a difference”.

The working group is  aiming to complete its work and present its findings to the University Council by the end of summer. The Council is due to meet on the 17th of July.

Professor Graham Virgo said: “We are grateful to all those who took part in the meeting on investments in, and research funded by, companies belonging to the defence industry. A wide range of views were voiced at the meeting and will assist the working group in its consultation.”