Originally published in Synapse on September 24, 1987.
On Sept. 12, the University of California Student Association voted overwhelmingly to continue its 15-year opposition to the ties between the University of California and the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore weapons laboratories.
On Sept. 18, the Board of Regents ignored the voices of thousands of UC faculty and staff, as well as concerned citizens, and voted to continue UC management of these labs for five more years.
The regents’ decision to continue UC’s relationship with the labs was taken despite compelling evidence that UC’s management role amounts to little more than lending its name and prestige to the effort to design bigger and better weapons of mass destruction.
The regents’ vote occurred despite growing evidence that lab administrators have engaged in improper lobbying activities under the University of California’s name.
In fact, national news reports are now spurring calls for a congressional investigation into allegations that lab administrators have been lobbying against adoption of a comprehensive test ban treaty.
UCSA’s opposition to continued UC oversight of the labs is in part based on these problems, but its concern runs much deeper than inadequate oversight and improper lobbying.
Many people simply don’t realize that UC’s Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories are solely responsible for the design of each and every weapon in the United States’ nuclear arsenal. As one might expect, the development of these weapons takes place under a cloak of complete secrecy.
As students, we need not reach consensus on whether or not continued nuclear weapons research is advisable. We need only agree that top secret research must not take place in an institution dedicated to the principles of academic freedom and discussion.
Severance of UC’s ties with the labs is a necessary first step in a larger public evaluation of the labs’ mission. The university is known for teaching and research aimed at the enlightenment and improvement of human life.
UC’s association obscures the labs’ function: designing weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, the labs’ historic practice of secrecy and opposition to arms control corrupts the university by undermining its commitment to open and unbiased debate.
As with the 20-year-long student divestment movement, getting to the day that we win severance from the labs will take time and extraordinary energy.
We can at least take solace, however small, in the knowledge that history will once again judge the student movement favorably. We know in our hearts that the students, faculty and others calling for severance are right.
