In last week’s issue, both Matt DiBlasi and David Knappenberger, in response to Kevin Young and SEWI’s Wespeak “Why Does Wesleyan Invest in Weapons Contractors?” argue that more weapons must be produced in order to defend the U.S.
DiBlasi writes, “while these companies are making weapons for the war in Iraq, that is not their lone goal. Their goal is defense—of the United States.” Knappenberger asks, “Can you imagine living under despotic nations’ rules?”
Actually, the U.S. as of 2003 comprised over 40% of world military spending; that’s $404.9 billion to Russia’s $65.2 billion and China’s $55.9 (The Military Balance, 2004-2005). These statistics reveal that the U.S. has more than enough weapons to defend itself or deter attacks, and that the weapons manufactured are either exported to other countries or used for aggressive actions like the War in Iraq. I for one do not spend my nights worrying that a despotic nation is going to overthrow the U.S. because we lack weapons.
I do worry that the amount of money the U.S. spends on weapons and the amount of weapons we produce make the world less safe by impelling other countries to produce more weapons to try to keep up with us. Historically, intensive weapons productions have only provoked more violence. After all, wasn’t the arms race between England and Germany one of the main causes of World War I? If Wesleyan claims to be socially responsible, it should divest itself from these companies that make weapons and thus promote violence. Investing in weapons companies is a political action that Wesleyan, if it is the supposedly apolitical education it claims to be, should not be making.
However, executive editor Matt DiBlasi went so far as to question the authorship of the Wespeak submitted by Young on behalf of SEWI. DiBlasi begins his “Editor’s Notebook,” “Supposedly, he [Young] wrote on behalf of the student group, Students for Ending the War in Iraq (SEWI). While I do not know whether or not everyone in that group shares Young’s view, I sincerely hope that this is not the case.”
In this statement, DiBlasi makes a number of surprising assertions:
(1) That Young submitted the Wespeak claiming to write on behalf of SEWI, without consulting the group.
(2) That SEWI members did not work on the article or consider its content.
(3) That the Argus does not bother to verify the authors of Wespeaks.
Although DiBlasi, without any reason, questions the level of democracy within the group and implies that Young may have simply passed his own views off as the group’s, our previous Wespeak was actually the product of a long SEWI campaign and ongoing internal discussion that began last semester. While Kevin wrote the draft, he solicited and obtained input from many people within the group including myself. So, when DiBlasi writes that Kevin “[s]upposedly” wrote on behalf of SEWI, he, with one word, discounts the research, the group discussions, the meetings with the investment board, the debate, and all the time and consideration SEWI members have given this issue.
Moreover, although the Argus printed that the article was written, “By Kevin Young, on Behalf of Students for Ending the War in Iraq,” DiBlasi questions this fact printed by his own paper. If the Argus had concerns about the authorship of the Wespeak, the time to bring them up was before it was published. SEWI members take careful consideration before putting our names on a Wespeak because we respect what the Argus prints: it is a sad day when the executive editor does not do the same.
Leave a Reply