The UARC would bring opportunities

On October 19, about 130 faculty members met at the biennial Faculty Congress. In the debate on the Navy's proposed University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), all faculty members who spoke were against the plan to allow UH to conduct classified research.

Peter Britos went so far as to say it was the end of "the university as the last great bastion of colonialism."

Wow – sounds pretty serious when you put it like that. Why is a UARC such a bad thing?

Arguments against UARC include loss of intellectual integrity, further militarization of Hawai'i, and social/ethical issues. All of these are just plain silly.

First, intellectual autonomy is not at risk. The Board of Regents is not changing its policy that all research be undertaken voluntarily. No one's job will be at risk because they don't want to research related to the military. If anything, UARC will provide more freedom for faculty to choose which research to perform.

Second, Hawai'i is not going to become any more dominated by the military than it already is.

Whether we like it or not, our state is already dependent on federal spending. By preventing the Navy from doing classified research here, there's nothing to be gained – their money is only going to go somewhere else.

Last, there are the social and ethical issues, as Keli`i Collier brought up in the September 21 Faculty Senate meeting by yelling at Vice Chancellor Gary Ostrander. Some wonder if anything good can come from such secretive research.

What, you mean like, the Internet? As mentioned earlier, there will be no forced labor in any of the Navy's research requ3ests. Just because something is classified doesn't make it evil. Consider many workplaces' non-disclosure clauses – do they violate the public's right to know? Of course not.

Plus, before a researcher even gets to consider a project, it will have to get past a review committee which will week out research requests deemed inappropriate for our university.

It's already been agreed that UH will not house the next Manhattan Project or some space-based super laser. Between the WMD clause, the review committee, and an individual's right to choose, we get three layers of bureaucracy to filter out unethical projects.

The opportunity to perform classified research for the Navy offers several opportunities for UH not previously available.

If can lift university prestige and join other schools with UARCs in the top tier of research universities, such as Johns Hopkins University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This means a degree that'd be recognized as coming from a top school, not just a local backwater college for students who couldn't get in elsewhere.

It could also create better jobs. Because the UARC's off-site brain center would contain classified material, security clearances would be necessary for all security guards, cleaning crew, and staff members. Those clearances can be later used for employment in higher paying federal jobs.

Most importantly, approving the UARC proposal means students, both graduate and undergraduate, can participate in meaningful, cutting edge research. By working on projects like better optics for night vision goggles, students can not only secure a good position after graduation, but help keep out soldiers safer.

In the debate about a Navy UARC, the benefits are clear, and opponents' fears are unfounded. Let's take advantage of this opportunity and let the Board of Regents approve the UARC proposal on November 17.