The most obvious argument against this issue is of course the one regarding morality. So I am calling upon the students and the orientation committee to put all other factors aside for a moment and simply consider this issue based upon ethics. Let’s begin with a statement we can agree upon. War is wrong. War has and continues to result in the senseless deaths of millions of people around the world. Wars aid in erasing the sanctity of human life and create a society desensitized to bloodshed, weaponry, murder and other horrific acts of violence. A common adage is that “there are no winners in war.” That of course is a false statement.
There are always winners in wars. Defence contractors in particular stand to make the greatest profit from wars. Defence contractors work directly with governments to provide them with methods of defence for their countries. This normally means weapons for the military. Imagine for a country that relies upon a certain defence contractor for their defence needs. Imagine that this defence contractor also happens to sponsor Waterloo’s Engineering Orientation. Now imagine the country that this defence contractor supplies breaks out into civil war. The country’s defence needs of course increase exponentially and the resulting business for the defence contractor increases their profit margin exponentially as well. The defence contractor, in turn decides that an increased profit margin means they are able to provide more funding to Waterloo’s Engineering Orientation. The increased funding means a better orientation week for incoming engineering students at the University.
Think about that for a minute. The quality of orientation week is directly related to the level of conflict and need for defence in the countries which provide business for defence contractors. In the simplest terms possible, more war means better orientation. Can we, as human beings, be okay with that? Before we argue with facts and numbers, before we break into the semantics of the impacts we actually have we must first answer this question: Are we okay with being profiteers of war? Are we okay with benefiting from the deaths of human beings?
Now, questions of morality aside there are a plethora of other reasons why the orientation committee needs to reconsider its choice of sponsors. Waterloo’s particular sponsor is Raytheon, a defense contractor that made 90% of its US $25 billion revenue through military contracts in 2007. In that same year Raytheon was the fifth largest defence contractor in the world. Raytheon is also a large employer of engineering co-op students. It seems the University has formed a partnership in which they receive sponsorship for orientation and employment for students. Raytheon in turn receives access to Waterloo students, trained in one of the best engineering programs in the world. They find future employees. Everyone wins, except the students.
Engineers are supposed to solve problems and engineering education is supposed to provide students with the skills to accomplish this. Waterloo has often touted their belief in innovative approaches to problem solving. War, however, is the least innovative approach to problem solving possible. In fact one could argue that it is not problem solving at all but simply a reinforcement of the “might means right” philosophy using weapons. Yet, the University administration believes this is a fitting industry to employ our co-op students. And co-op jobs often translate into permanent positions. Does this stand true with our self-touted reputation for innovation? Instead of engineering students using the skills they acquire at Waterloo to help solve the problems that cause war, they end up doing the exact opposite. They try to make war more profitable. Are a few thousand dollars in sponsorship money truly worth this?
The larger problem in this scenario is not that a few Waterloo graduates may one day work for a defence contractor. The problem is that education is only valuable if it is utilized for the betterment of the world. And by sending out the message that working for a defence contractor is suitable employment for Waterloo engineers, the University administration is unwittingly limiting the potential of its students. The University should expect more out of its graduates. Waterloo engineers should be working to reduce the need for defence contractors, working to reduce the problems that lead to war. Simply put, they should be solving problems, doing what engineers are supposed to be doing as opposed to compliantly profiting from this industry.
But students are compliant. They do not question the orientation committee or the University administration for their partnership with Raytheon. And in doing so they do a huge disservice, not only to themselves, but to the world as a whole. Student movements are often instrumental in changing not only their university administration but public policy as well. In the sixties, the massive protests against the Vietnam War in the United States were a result of student movements. In a more recent example, student movements in Quebec have succeeded in not only drawing national attention to their concerns but a call for an election by opposition parties. Students have political power, and it can be used to create change.
So why aren’t Waterloo students using this power? This may be an issue about just one orientation week sponsor, but it opens the door for a larger discussion about the lack of student engagement on the Waterloo campus. A few weeks ago I attended a local demonstration against the Conservative’s budget bill and was disappointed in the lack of Waterloo students present. The number of Laurier students at the demonstration was significantly higher. Why? Perhaps we need to take a closer look at ourselves and question why this is so? Is our focus on being technologically innovative preventing our students from being engaged, responsible citizens? Is it possible for the campus to have both? We have to realize that unless we as students become more vocal about our concerns with decisions made by the people in power (i.e. orientation committees) we cannot expect to bring about change.
My first argument on this topic regarded morality. I asked everyone to consider the ethics of this debate. If we come to the conclusion that it is unethical to accept this sponsorship, students must be the main moral voice on campus. We must hold ourselves and our campus accountable to a higher level of ethics. The question posed for this debate asks whether the Federation Orientation Committee should accept sponsorships for defence contractors. But I would propose changing the topic to “Should STUDENTS ALLOW the Federation Orientation Committee to accept sponsorships from defence contractors?” Because students are the ones with the power to change it.
Leave a Reply