Students for Ending the War in Iraq (SEWI) would like to thank Mytheos Holt for his opinions on divestment. We are always glad to see this important issue debated. Nevertheless, Mr. Holt is mistaken about the history of our campaign to divest from weapons contractors and how the campaign relates to the situation in Iraq and the goals and nature of our University.
Had Mr. Holt made serious inquiries into the history of the divestment campaign he would have realized that Wesleyan does not have “the brains to realize how thoroughly foolish” divestment is. On April 29, 2007, the representative organ of the student body, the Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA), passed a resolution endorsing divestment from General Dynamics and Raytheon. This document cited the resolution passed in spring 2003 that condemned the Iraq War. Furthermore, SEWI has already collected approximately 700 student signatures on a petition calling for divestment from the aforementioned companies. SEWI is also scheduled to meet with Michael Roth on Nov. 9 to discuss divestment. Though Mr. Holt might consider it foolish, there is clearly strong support for divestment at this university. His column also shows that he fails to comprehend the realities of the Iraq War, namely the failure of the American military to bring security to the region.
Mr. Holt claims that American troops are currently in Iraq on a peacekeeping mission to prevent a civil war, thus, due to these circumstances, to divest would be socially irresponsible. However, military means have not been able to keep the peace in Iraq. Since the American invasion, violence in Iraq has steadily increased. From last year, mortar attacks that kill civilians have quadrupled from 73 to 289, bombs blasts that kill over 50 people have doubled from nine to 17, and fatal suicide bombings, car bombings and roadside bombings have doubled from 712 to 1476. What makes these statistics even more shocking was that they were reported last April. (Counterpunch, Apr. 21) Even if the United States was conducting a successful peacekeeping mission, weapons made by General Dynamics and Raytheon would not play a constructive role. The weapons made by these companies are for attack; they include air to ground missiles, amphibious assault vehicles and nuclear weapon delivery systems. Mr. Holt correctly states that social responsibility is dependent on circumstance. The circumstances show that a military solution in Iraq is not a solution; therefore, to divest from weapons contractors is not socially irresponsible.
Mr. Holt also incorrectly states that the divestment campaign has no place at Wesleyan. He writes, at Wesleyan “We are here to learn how to think, not to tell the school what to think.” However, it is a stated goal of the University “to engender [in students] a moral sensibility that can weigh consequences beyond self” and to teach students how to be effective citizens. Effective citizenship is described as “The ability to analyze and develop informed opinions on the political and social life of one’s local community, one’s country, and the global community, and to engage in constructive action if appropriate.” The divestment campaign seems to be the perfect application of a Wesleyan education in that it employs morality to examine the consequences of our choices and takes constructive action within our community. Mr. Holt also claims that Wesleyan should be a politically neutral institution, but as shown above, Wesleyan does not desire its students to be either politically or morally neutral.
Contrary to Mr. Holt’s opinion, as expressed through his anarchist- in-Wal-Mart analogy, investment in weapons contractors is not politically neutral. According to open secrets.org, lobbying costs in 2006 for General Dynamics totaled $9,364,324 while Raytheon spent $5,978,157. Furthermore, personnel associated with both these companies have ties to Washington. For example, the Deputy Secretary of Sefense, Gordon England, used to be vice president of General Dynamics (The Boston Globe May 10, 2001). By investing in these companies, Wesleyan is supporting the military industrial complex and extremely powerful political entities.
Finally, Wesleyan’s investment in weapons contractors is also a moral statement. Our investment shows that we as a community feel comfortable with profiting from companies that are dependent on war and that make products solely designed to kill and destroy. Our investment shows that we are comfortable with profiting from companies that are not selective about who they sell high tech weapons to. In 2003, 20 out of the 25 developing countries that received the largest amounts of American—made weapons were classified by the State Department as either undemocratic or human rights abusers (“US Weapons at War 2005,” worldpolicy.org).
If we, as an educational, political and moral community, do not feel comfortable with the products, business practices or political behavior of General Dynamics and Raytheon (companies whose merchandise is not facilitating to the creation of peace in Iraq), we should divest. While Holt might label this argument as simplistic, we would call it fundamental.
Leave a Reply