0 ' ,' . , r' 6 .' OPINION age 4 Wednesday, December 8, 1982 The Michigan Daily Whync By Roger Kerson "TheUniversity will not enter into or enew any agreement or contract or accept :ny grant, the clearly foreseeable and jobable nature of which, the direct ap- jication of which, or any specific purpose <,f which is to destroy human life or in- apackate human beings." NThe passage quoted above is part of the (niversity of Michigan's policy on classified 'search, approved by the Regents in 1972. An rlier version of the policy was passed in 1968, a result of a 1967 investigation by The ichigan Daily which revealed the Univer- ty's direct participation in the Vietnam war. The University has had a policy against apons research for more than 14 years, but ring that time, a variety of studies have been "nducted here which have direct military ap- Iications. Most recently, an investigation last ear by Bret Eynon for the Michigan Student e4ssembly revealed that University scientists Were at work on the following weapons-related ?rojects: * A study of missile guidance devices inten- ded, according to project documents, "to im- prove performance and capability of active RF missile seekers transmitters, expendable decoy jammers, and other military systems." Prof. George Haddad, chairman of the elec- it to change classified researci trical and computer engineering department, was principal investigator for this study; " Experimental tests of fuel air explosives, conducted by Prof. James Nicholls of the aerospace engineering department; . Studies of "radar absorbing material," which can be used to coat missile fins and plane wings so that aircraft can reach their targets without detection. This is the basis of technology for the "stealth" bomber. These studies are being conducted by Prof. Thomas Senior, also of the electrical and computer engineering department; * Research on maneuvering for "high speed attack submarines," carried out by Prof. Michael Parsons of the naval architecture and marine engineering department. Although all of these projects have clear military applications, only one of them-the research on submarine maneuvering-was ever reviewed for compliance with University policy against weapons research. The others are not classified, and the present policy ap- plies only to classified research. As Eynon pointed out in his report to MSA, the loophole is indefensible: "If secret research which kills is bad, is open research which kills good?" In April 1982, the Faculty Senate Assembly passed an advisory resolution which stated that the present policy against weapons research "is a fundamental ethical principle to which the University should adhere in all research, not just in classified research" (the senate's action is subject to approval by the Regents or the administration). After some debate as to how an extension of the policy would be ap- plied, the senate asked the Research Policies Committee to devise a plan for implementing the proposal. THE RPC has been working on such a plan since the beginning of this semester. In the midst of these discussions, some faculty mem- bers on the committee raised the concern that the policy on classified research is too restric- tive as stated and might be difficult to enforce if it were applied to all research. One of the professors who expressed this opinion was Thomas Senior, who currently holds more than $200,000 in research grants from the Pentagon. Most of Senior's projects are unclassified and several of them are directly related to weapons development. At the Nov. 18 RPC meeting, the committee agreed to propose an alternative wording for consideration by the faculty: "The University will not enter into or renew any agreement or contract or accept any grant, the primary purpose of which is to destroy human life or incapacitate human beings.'' On Nov. 29, Prof. Robert Moyers, current chairman of the RPC, circulated an open letter to faculty and students which implied that the entire committee had endorsed the proposed changes by consensus. In fact, several commit- tee members have objected to the letter; they believed that they were merely offering a proposal for consideration, not endorsing any changes one way or the other. There is no compelling reason to change the current wording of the policy, and there are several compelling reasons not to do so: 1. THE MEMBERS of the RPC who are proposing the change suggest that they are simplifying the policy, because it is too vague as written. Actually, their recommendation would seriously complicate the matter, because the new language would apply only to non-classified research. The University would then have two different policies for two dif- ferent sorts of research, instead of one clear, consistent, University-wide standard. 2. THE PROPOSED changes would seriously weaken the policy against research which might lead to the destruction of human life. By eliminating the qualifying clauses, "clearly foreseeable result" and "direct ap- plication," the new wording removes respon- sibility from the researcher to examine the im- plication of his or her work. The new wording is also weaker in that it refers only to "primary purpose" of the research and not to "any specific purpose." Thus, a project would be allowed even if it had specific weapons applications, so long as it had a non-military application which could be ter- med "primary." 3. THE FEARS which have keen expressed by some faculty members that the extension of zpolicy the present policy to all research would severely restrict research at the University aie completely unfounded. During the ten years that the policy has been applied to classified research, more than 80 projects have been reviewed for compliance with the guidelines. Only one project has been rejected. Where is the evidence that a larger proportion of projec- ts would be rejected if the policy were applied to all University research? In fact, since classified Department of Defense projects are more likely to involve weapons applications, common sense would indicate that a much smaller proportion of projects-if any-would be rejected if the present policy were applied to all research. The RPC is scheduled to vote on the proposed new policy for unclassified research tomorrow. The committee has invited comments on the proposal and it is important that members of the University community air their views on this critical issue. If the University intends to respect the guidelines against weapons research as a "fundamental ethical principle," then the proposed change doesn't make any sense. When confronted with the fact that several projects clearly violate University rules, the appropriate response is not to change the rules, but to eliminate the projects. Kerson is a research coordinator for the Michigan Student Assembly. Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Wasserman L Vol. XCIII, No. 74 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 oVD0 l o'1 4 DD 7 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board } No gift fro t TUDENTS DIDN'T get any early Christmas present from their ofessors at Monday's LSA faculty, ieeting - but that doesn't mean they jft empty-handed. Once again, the effort to give studen- its the gift of a voice on the college's ,gmost influential committee was rebuf- fed by the faculty. To no one's sur- prise, the faculty present defeated the potion by a large margin. But this gme around, the matter was at least ,brought up before the governing faulty for a vote. And this time, students found they have a core of sup- port for their position among their ,.,professors. -Since the '60s, students have been -pushing for a position on the commit- tee that has a say on nearly all of the important decisions affecting LSA. The past several LSA Student Gover- ,nnent presidents have all placed a high priority on furthering efforts to get students the voice they both need and deserve. So far, those efforts have proven futile. At this week's meeting, faculty members brought up the typical objec- tions. Students lack experience, some tfaculty members argued; students. ihaven't been at the University long enough to know what it needs, and they won't be here long enough to have a ,stake in its future. The committee, some argued, is too important to be m the faculty part of an experiment in student participation. These faculty members argue, in ef- feet, that students are wise enough to pay the University millions of dollars in tuition - that they are mature enough to give the University a reason to exist - but that they are unable to havd a position - even a non-voting position -on the committee which has the greatest influence over their education. Brimming with jealous paternalism, these faculty members argue that education is too important to be left to students. In fact, the con- verse is true: Education is too impor- tant to be left to closed meetings of professors. The only reasoning that made any sense for voting down the proposal was that it was not specific enough. The proposal did not say whether the student would be a voting or non-voting member of the committee, nor did it not specify how long the student's ap- pointment would run. But the students and faculty mem- bers backing the proposal shouldn't be discouraged. They should view Mon- day's defeat as a stepping stone; they should build on the progress they have made. The student and faculty leaders who have pushed for a new voice on the LSA Executive Committee should remember that if what they were after were easy to get, Santa would have given it to them already. _ v 01 r 1 0 - I A 00 S LETTERS TO THE DAILY: Pity for writer on al Al ;7. ,k., ' " .: sr . ('- - To the Daily: John Jacobs' Opinion Page ar- ticle, "The need for intervention in El Salvador" (Daily, Dec. 3), is a joke. I would take it as such, were it not for the American and Salvadoran lives that are at stake. For one thing, the title of the history major's article is poorly chosen. A "need" implies something that cannot be done without, something extreme. And his opening sentence, "Recently it's been suggested from a number of quarters that the United States should not be supporting the current regime in El Salvador." To that I reply-recently suggested, nothing. The Salvadoran people have demanded that the United States get out from day one of this country's uninvited and un- welcome visit. Mr. Jacobs' article is beyond criticism and rational discussion. What is sad is not the number of ...what about his history courses? He needs not to be condemned, but pitied, and helped in every way possible. In a world less filled with lunacy, Jacobs would be seen for what he is-a defen- To the Daily: John Jacobs' call to arms, "The need for intervention in El Salvador" (Daily, Dec. 3), is very droll, but it does raise an impor- tant question: What is wrong with the University's history courses? Here we have a young man-a sophomore, to be exact-who calls himself a history concen- trator at a major university. Yet he clings to the quaint notion, held by ninth grade history teachers, that the main purpose of studying the past is to furnish apologies for one's preconcep- tions. Shame on us for criticizing El SAlvador's harried but earnest generals, Jacobs bellows. We had our lynchings and riots, now let someone else have fun. Let a nation develop a "democratic tradition"-equal opportunity to be slaughtered and the right to vote for the mannequin of your choice. "We must learn from history," he solemnly reminds us. Gran- ted, that is "trite," but it's not nearly so vapid as the other cliches that he blithly sprikles throughout his long-winded, shallow essay. According to Jacobs, "We must distinguish between 'autocratic' and 'totalitarian' regimes" (the former like us, the latter don't); "the media ignore the atrocities of the left" (don't they know that power lines and schoolbuses are being sabotaged at this very moment?). If we don't intervene, the Salvadorans will go Red, "whether they want it or not" (here we must assume that Jacobs slipped, intending to say6 "whether we want it or not"). This kind of shoddy reasoning by a history major is appalling.; Since when do history professors assign Reader's Digest and, Reagan's press releases to their students? -Tom McLaughlin December 4 Salvado, der of genocide with a severe lack of understanding. I hope the Daily will be more selective in its choice of articles in the future. This one insults the good name of the human race, defies intelligence, and ignores logic at every word. -Wayne Shaw I.wC w u 1 iii ::ยข a ~lt :a