The Glasgow Guardian talks to Glasgow University COO David Duncan about the progress of divestment from arms, what the university is doing about the housing crisis and staff concerns about attendance policy.
Recently, the Glasgow Guardian had the opportunity to speak to David Duncan, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer (COO) at the University of Glasgow, concerning divestment, housing and international students.
Following the University Court hearing on divestment on 18 June 2024, and its subsequent statement, many groups and societies, including the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) and Glasgow Against Arms and Fossil Fuels (GAAF) voiced their frustrations regarding the University’s inability “to provide a conclusive vote on divestment”.
In response to these frustrations, the Glasgow Guardian asked David Duncan whether he believed that by this point there should be a definitive answer by the university regarding divestment. “The reality is that a decisive answer was given 2-3 years ago” – referring to when the university voted ‘NO’ on divestment. Regarding the issue of why divestment has taken so long, despite groups such as the SRC vocally supporting divestment for the past 10 years, Duncan argued that “you do have to give clear instructions to fund managers .. and that has to be done on basis of policy by the court and then other things may flow from that.”
Whilst still not having divested from arms, Duncan reiterated the fact that the University of Glasgow divested from fossil fuels back in 2015 following just under a decade. Duncan added that “I don’t imagine that if court decides to divest in arms that it will take that long because the holdings in the defence sector are much smaller.”
Another element of the university’s statement was the introduction of task groups “which will shape the University’s ongoing response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza”. When asked about what purpose these task groups will have, Mr Duncan voiced that the university is “committed … to involve students and trade unions in our approach to what we’re doing. To support people affected by the conflict in the Middle East.” However, he acknowledged that “I think it’s taken a bit longer to set up than it should have done”.
Scholarships and bursaries for Palestinian students have been further topics of conversation among students calling for divestment. The university’s statement on divestment had said that “Court noted that the University is already very active in supporting those affected by the conflict through the award of scholarships and fellowships.” Duncan elaborated, “my understanding is that the need that Palestinian universities and colleagues in that region have expressed to us isn’t necessarily scholarship to bring out students from Gaza, it’s about supporting online learning for people working at universities that have been destroyed but they still want to learn”.
One key element of the university’s statement following the 18 June 2024 hearing was their promise, “in keeping with our institutional values, [to] contribute as strongly as we can to the rebuilding of higher education in Gaza post conflict.” Duncan reiterated throughout the interview that the university is striving to provide assistance to universities destroyed by Israeli bombardment and “support reconstruction of higher education”.
When asked if he felt this statement was perhaps contradictory to the University’s financial practices, if they have been investing in arms that have been used to destroy these higher education buildings, Duncan asserted that “I don’t think there is [a contradiction].
There are two questions there: one is whether the UK should have a defence sector and [if it’s] okay for us as a university to invest in that defence sector – and a lot of people would separate that from the views that they have regarding the conflict in the Middle East.
Of course there is a connection, but … people can have two sets of views, one on whether it’s a good idea to have a defence sector. Don’t forget the jobs in Glasgow and Scotland and across the UK that are dependent on that sector – and the second thing is whether the UK should be selling arms to participants in the conflict”.
Those to my mind are two separate questions and it’s possible to reach separate views on that […] the two questions are distinct and most people would think of them as distinct.”
When asked if he agreed both ideas could be distinct, that the University can invest in the UK defence sector whilst also not investing in arms in Israel, Duncan maintained that “whether we invest in the defence sector, it’s not a question specifically about Israel”.
The money that the University invests in the defence sector, explained Duncan, is “money that’s been given to us by donors to support good causes within the university” and has been donated either for specific purposes or for general use. While not limited to the defence sector, as the fund is also used to support scholarships for disadvantaged students, Duncan argued that “as a charity we have a responsibility to try to maximise that amount of money [and] to invest that money in a morally acceptable way”. In regards to the debate on whether the University’s investment in arms is morally acceptable, Duncan maintained that “there are different views whether it’s morally acceptable to invest in the defence sector or not, and that’s what we’re asking the university community”.
The exact figure invested via the endowment fund towards the defence sector has been regularly contested, with the Glasgow Guardian publishing back in September 2019 that the university invests over £3 million in the arms trade. Since then, in January 2024, GAAF has published on their Instagram that the University is investing an estimated £5.5 million in arms. When asked by the Glasgow Guardian if it was accurate that this investment has increased, Duncan said that he “[doesn’t] think it is. I don’t know the exact number of our current investment. My understanding of the GAAF way of calculating this is to identify companies […] that are active in the UK which earn more than 10% of their income from defence related activities. GAAF tries to identify which companies they regard as part of the defence sector and that isn’t an unreasonable way to do it.” When asked to comment on what he believes the figure currently stands at, he said that “my understanding is that our holdings in these companies are significantly lower than the numbers just mentioned, but I need to find out what the exact figure is because they go up and down all the time.”
Following the University’s statement regarding the 18 June hearing, the SRC released a statement that was heavily critical of how the hearing was conducted. In their statement, the SRC said that “the management of the meeting, as noted by several members, was inadequate. The failure to allow proper discussion and the inability to minute objections in real time has undermined the democratic process and left many of us feeling that our voices were not sufficiently heard.” When asked to respond to this Duncan commented that “it is a bold statement. It’s a view. It is not necessarily a view shared by all the court members.” While he acknowledged that the hearing “didn’t go on for as long as some people would’ve liked it to go on for”, he argued that “it’s not the last discussion we’re going to have – we’re coming back to these issues in November.”
When asked if the University will take into consideration this statement before the next hearing, Duncan said that “we will certainly take that on board and allow time for a proper discussion [in November].”
The topic of the University’s investment strategies and financial practices have also been brought into discussions surrounding UofG student housing. A Freedom of Information request from the Glasgow Guardian revealed that the Scottish Green Party had accused the University of Glasgow of “profiteering” from students due to rent increases during the cost of living crisis.
When asked to comment on this criticism, Duncan defended the University’s position, arguing that they have “increased rentals on university accommodation less than the rate of inflation” since he arrived at the University in 2017. “I don’t think that is consistent with the argument that we’re trying to profit from students in terms of accommodation. Every year we’ve increased accommodation fees less than the rate of inflation.”
Duncan also commented on the work that the University has done in talking to the Scottish government “to try to make sure that their policies don’t make the [housing] situation worse.” Duncan pointed to one effort the University has recently made which is “encouraging [Glasgow] city to approve applications from PBSA developments – like the massive one [The Árd] just beside the M8” with the expectation of “[increasing] the supply [of accommodation] and then hopefully in the long run reduce the cost [of housing]”.
However, for the University of Glasgow’s own accommodation, concerns still remain about rising costs. When asked by the Glasgow Guardian if any accommodation being built in the near future will have the capacity for new students as well as remaining affordable for students, Duncan explained that the university “[does] our best to try to keep our own accommodation at affordable levels, hence the increases below the rate of inflation from the last two years.”
In regards to the affordability of a new block of student accommodation flat, reported to be built on the corner of Dumbarton Rd and Church St and owned by the University of Glasgow, Mr Duncan said “we haven’t set rent prices yet – we haven’t even got planning permission from this company – but we will certainly take into account affordability as one of the factors when we’re setting the rents for that accommodation.” He continued, “what we do have to do is to make sure that we are charging enough so that we can reinvest in that accommodation.
It has to be a balance between affordability and quality – we can’t just reduce the rent to the absolute bare minimum and invest nothing in it, meaning that people are living in accommodation that is totally unacceptable.”
In response to questions regarding the rent rises of existing student accommodation owned by the University, Duncan went on to say that “what we can’t do is control what private landlords are charging, but if the supply is greater – in other words if more rooms are built – and landlords are offering accommodation in tenements for students rooms, that will have a positive impact on the prices charged to students.” Duncan acknowledged rises in rent prices for students throughout Glasgow in the past few years, pointing to the fact that “the private rental sector has shrunk and landlords have said it’s not worth my time renting to students anymore, [meaning] fewer landlords are left and they’ve been able to charge a higher price and that has impacted negatively students.”
In order to rectify this, “what we want to see is an adequate supply of university accommodation and of PBSA [Purpose-Built Student Accommodation] accommodation and within the PRS [Property Redress Scheme],” Duncan explains, “so that students have a choice of accommodation that’s affordable and close to the campus.”
The decline of international students and applications for sponsored student visas coming to study in the UK has become another issue for universities. When asked about whether the University of Glasgow was worried about any negative impact on its finances, Duncan responded that “Glasgow university is in a relatively positive position; we are still generating surplus that we can reinvest.” He continued saying that “we are a charity, we don’t make profits. Our position in the international student marketplace is pretty strong – in other words lots of people want to come study at Glasgow because it is a good university and our reputation is strong internationally”.
Following the Glasgow Guardian’s investigation into attendance collecting policies for international students and frustrations voiced by University lecturers regarding these policies, Duncan was keen to emphasise that the Home Office (HO) “were happy with the way we [the University of Glasgow] approach this. A lot of people might not like attendance monitoring […] but there’s not a lot we can do about that. We have to comply, otherwise we won’t be able to recruit international students.” When asked if he agreed with the sentiment shared by many lecturers, Mr Duncan told the Glasgow Guardian, “I share the sentiment that it would be much better if we didn’t have to do this, [but] we have to comply with this HO rules – let’s try to do it in a way that is as non-intrusive as possible.”
