As a student, it’s difficult to ignore the widespread protests, demonstrations, and hunger strikes that have taken place across campus. The university currently holds investments of nearly £7 million in arms companies – an amount that many students argue contradicts the institution’s commitment to social justice.
Despite significant student activism, the university has yet to act, raising the question: are student voices being genuinely listened to, or merely tolerated?
Background and context
In recent months, students have mobilised to demand that Glasgow University divest from arms companies as they claim these businesses profit from global conflict and perpetuate violence. Activists argue that such investments undermine the university’s stated values, particularly its public commitment to social responsibility and global justice.
They point to the university’s previous decisions to divest from the fossil fuel and tobacco industries as precedents. If Glasgow could disengage from those harmful sectors, why not also from arms and defence? Other institutions, including the University of St Andrews, have already taken this step. The students are urging the university to withdraw from any company earning more than 10% of its revenue from the arms industry.
The university, meanwhile, has cited potential financial consequences as a reason for not divesting. However, campaigners argue that with an endowment fund of £247 million, the university has sufficient financial flexibility to absorb the impact. They believe that ethical responsibility should outweigh financial hesitation, particularly when such investments may be tied to human suffering.
Student activism on campus
The divestment campaign has been marked by a wave of direct action. One of the most widely publicised incidents involved first-year student Hannah Taylor, who, alongside Strathclyde student Catriona Roberts, sprayed paint on a prominent university building on 6 February 2025 in protest. The act, carried out in solidarity with the activist group Youth Demand, led to Taylor’s arrest and temporary suspension from lectures. She was reinstated on 25 March.
In the weeks following, student activism intensified. Protests took place frequently, particularly outside the library, the Charles Wilson Building, and the Ian Rankin Building. Groups such as the Glasgow Stop the War Coalition rallied in support of Taylor and called on the university to divest.
Perhaps the most significant demonstration came in the form of a hunger strike, during which at least three students camped on campus to call attention to the university’s ties with arms companies – especially in the context of the Israel–Palestine conflict. The hunger strike lasted roughly a week but ended without eliciting a response from university leadership.
As a student on campus, these protests have become an unavoidable feature of daily life. While opinions among the student body are diverse, what has drawn widespread concern is the university’s handling of the protests. Activists reported that no medical support was provided during the hunger strike, and students have noted a growing police presence at otherwise peaceful demonstrations. This raises important questions about the university’s duty of care to its students.
For many, this lack of support has been just as troubling as the lack of political action. There is a growing feeling among student activists that their efforts are not only being dismissed but also met with increased institutional hostility. This has led some to question whether the university’s silence is strategic – a way to wait out the movement without having to engage.
Institutional response: silence in the face of a clear mandate
During the hunger strike, the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) conducted a referendum asking whether the university should cease investing in companies deriving more than 10% of their revenue from the arms industry. The results were resounding: 89.3% of the 9,706 students who voted supported the motion – a clear mandate for change.
Despite this, the university has issued no public statement and has made no apparent policy changes. Activists and the SRC continue to push for greater engagement, but the university’s silence has left many students feeling frustrated and ignored. It has also led to wider discussions about the effectiveness of student representation and what genuine influence students have in university decision-making.
What students want
Students involved in the movement have made their demands explicit. They argue that continued investment in arms companies is incompatible with the university’s values and public image. The SRC has backed this position, reinforcing that the student body wants the university to align its financial practices with ethical standards.
Whether the administration will respond remains uncertain. Students continue to hope for meaningful dialogue and action, but thus far, they are left waiting. As time passes, frustration builds, and with exams and dissertations underway, there is a risk that momentum may fade unless institutional transparency improves.
Student voice not being heard or acted upon
Activism has long been part of life at Glasgow University, but in this case, the administration’s silence is particularly stark. Despite clear student support for divestment – demonstrated through protest, direct action, and a democratic referendum – university leadership has yet to engage publicly.
It leaves students asking: How much weight does their collective voice actually carry? At present, it appears that the decision-makers are unwilling to act. Whether that changes will be a defining test of the university’s values and its relationship with those it exists to serve.
More in education.
Your voice, your story – independent powerful citizen journalism.
Consider supporting us monthly
A newspaper costs approximately £60.00/year, you can enjoy Bylines Scotland for £36.00/year – please think about supporting independent citizen journalism
