This is a noteworthy article. Here follow a few select paragraphs:
A group of students at McGill University have spent more than three weeks on hunger strike in an effort to force the Canadian college to divest from “companies supporting the Israeli military”.
The move follows months of protests and sit-ins at McGill and at universities around the world, as students and faculty members have protested against Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.
Then there’s this paragraph that might beg the question why an academic institution would invest in the military industrial-complex:
Documents on McGill’s website show that it held investments in companies including Lockheed Martin, a defense contractor which has sold fighter jets to Israel, and Safran, a French air and defense company.
It would appear McGill University initially agreed to a public forum - and the reneged on that agreement:
Amine said the McGill administration had acknowledged the strike, and agreed to a public forum on the issue, before cancelling the meeting. The school proposed a private meeting in early March, the students said, which was turned down.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A group of students at McGill University have spent more than three weeks on hunger strike in an effort to force the Canadian college to divest from “companies supporting the Israeli military”.
“McGill has ultimately pushed us to take this extreme form of action and put our bodies and our health and our lives on the line to make them know that it is absolutely unacceptable that they use our tuition money to invest in this way.”
Amine said the McGill administration had acknowledged the strike, and agreed to a public forum on the issue, before cancelling the meeting.
Chadi, an undergraduate student who asked that his last name not be published, said Friday was his 21st day of continuous hunger strike.
McGill on Friday issued a statement saying it is “concerned about the well-being of the students participating in this initative”.
These students have chosen a different approach; our hope is that they will understand that university policies will not be determined in this way before their well-being is affected.
The original article contains 473 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 64%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!