Debate: Students offer divergent opinions on heated Lockheed issue

By Colleen Snyder

The twelve students who fasted in front of the mission church have generated a lot of discussion over the past week. For some people, this act was taking things too far. Others just failed to understand the students' motives.

Sophomores Ryan Kottenstette and Evan Pivonka and senior McKinsey Miller volunteered to answer questions via email regarding different aspects of the issue. Miller, along with a group of other concerned students, began to question the proposed association between Santa Clara and Lockheed-Martin when the donation was publicly announced on the Santa Clara website. Kottenstette attended the "Students Against War" meeting. After seeing the opposition, he and Pivonka obtained over 150 student signatures in less than 24 hours supporting the acceptance of the donation by the University.

Both parties have gracefully offered their personal opinions here. Their opinions are not to be taken as opinions necessarily representative of the movements in support or in opposition to the Lockheed donation. All answers are to be taken in context of the format in which they are presented.

TSC: Why or why not do you think the Lockheed donation should have been accepted by the university?

Miller: A high-profile relationship with the largest weapons manufacturer in the world, that is involved in the production of nuclear weapons, sells weapons to countries that are known human rights violators and encourages war by selling weapons to both sides of a conflict, is a blatant contradiction of Jesuit values and degrades the meaning behind the various symbols of faith and justice on our campus.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: We believe that the University was right to accept the donation because we affirm the Jesuit mission of educating socially conscious individuals. We believe that Santa Clara's core curriculum contributes to such a goal. If Santa Clara intends to continue to produce socially responsible engineers who are competitive in their career field, they must maintain a well-funded engineering program. Lockheed's donation helps provide scholarships so that Santa Clara can accept the best students regardless of their financial circumstances.

TSC: What do you think of the way Fr. Locatelli and the administration handled the issue, especially in regards to the University statement of Jesuit ideals?

Miller: Before Fr. Locatelli's decision to keep the money was made, dialogue between the administration and concerned students never went further than the forum on April 17. The questions and concerns brought forward at the forum have yet to be addressed. On the first day of the fast, the administration threatened to have us arrested because we were in violation of the free speech "time, space and manner" clause. Most obviously, they did not understand that this is an issue of conscience for us - a social and moral obligation to speak. Yet, by the end of the week, we met with Jim Purcell to talk about the possible creation of a University Gift Acceptance Policy, and Fr. Locatelli offered to meet with us some time this week.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: Based on our interactions with him, we felt that Fr. Locatelli was professional and knowledgeable about all sides of the issue, and he did a good job making a decision in spite of pressure from many different directions. Regarding Jesuit ideals, we would have to defer to the judgment of several Jesuits with whom we've spoken; none of the ones we encountered seemed to object to receiving the gift.

TSC: What immediate and effective alternatives could be proposed to solve America's need for defense?

Miller: This is a very complicated issue that cannot be essentialized, but we need to open our imaginations beyond military aggression. There are all kinds of opportunities. Multilateral action and the pursuit of justice through intelligence work and legal channels rather than waging bombing campaigns. Becoming an active and supportive equal member of the World Court, rather than continuing to boycott the only medium for international justice. Evaluating our sanctions in Iraq and support of Israel. Formulating foreign policy that is not based on the ulterior motive of corporate profit. Peace is not the absence of war; it is the absence of the systems of war.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: The manufacture of arms is a necessary aspect of national defense, and Lockheed-Martin fulfills this need effectively.

TSC: To live in America is considered a privilege in many places around the world. Some would say this is because of what our defense has allowed us to do as a nation. How do you interpret this?

Miller: Once again, our military is not only about defense. The destruction at the hands of our system of "defense" is the antithesis of the rights and privileges we have here. Our success, at its current level of opulence, is based on the oppression of others around the world. El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala are all examples of our "defense" spending destroying the rights and lives of civilians around the world.

We have "security" in so far as we don't have to worry about going hungry or being blatantly persecuted, but I encourage everyone to look into the fine print of the Patriot Act and then tell me that we have ample freedoms here because of our military action. Furthermore, our "security" is not preserved through trillion-dollar Star Wars programs (that may work in 20 years) in any way other than the escalation of international arms tension. In 2000 there were 28 wars world wide, 90 percent of the victims were civilians: militarization is not about protection of the innocent.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: Our national defense is instrumental in protecting the individual freedoms and the human rights of our citizens, which we are fortunate to enjoy.

TSC: In your opinion, what was the purpose of the protest? (Considering that the decision about the Lockheed donation had already been made.) Did it achieve this?

Miller: First of all, we never called it a "protest". It must be clear that we had no demands; our goals were contained within the act of fasting itself. Secondly, we all acted from various personal desires, yet there were two basic uniting goals of our fast. Foremost, we felt an obligation to act against a wrong. It was an act of repentance or cleansing for the blatant contradictions in our environment - inconsistencies that we feel degraded the notions of justice and conscience espoused at Santa Clara. We believe that we are obliged to act against injustice, and that part of that process is claiming personal agency rather than simply allowing administrators to think and act for us. In fasting, we sought to remind ourselves of the suffering in the world, and our inherent ability to resist associations with systems that promote the continuation of that suffering. Our second intention behind the fast was to publicly initiate a dialogue from a place of deep sincerity and commitment. We wanted the campus to know we are serious and that we are dedicated to engaging the issue of our integrity as a Jesuit University.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: We wouldn't really classify it as a protest, more a statement of beliefs. We saw their actions as an appeal to the Jesuits to re-evaluate the way they applied their ideals to this particular situation.

TSC: How do you feel about people eating pizza in front of the fasters?

Miller: It is absolutely their right to voice their opinions. Active participation is key to any democracy. We just hope that in our active participation, we all can be open to dialogue and proceed in a manner that is humble, well informed and compassionate.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: We felt that this action was rude and disrespectful. Although we might not agree with the fasters' point of view, we respect and encourage their ability to express their beliefs.

TSC: Many would say that what the fasters did was hypocritical - only in a country like America would they be allowed this freedom of speech and demonstration, and yet they used this freedom, ironically protected by our national defense, to criticize that very structure. Please respond.

Miller: Weapons manufacturing is not just about national defense, it escalates beyond security. We are trying to think beyond our own setting here, acting in consideration of those who are most affected by the weapons produced in this country. We acknowledge that our action and inaction directly affects people around the world, and thus we have the responsibility to take the power of our setting and use it in a manner that is conscious of the wider global community.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: Democracy in its purest form requires that people speak their minds. Their acts were not hypocritical, but an exercise of their fundamental rights which we all value and strive to protect.

TSC: Do you feel the demographic of the student population here at SCU influenced the decision or the results/response of the protest?

Miller: More important than the side of the issue people support, is the fact that dialogue occurs. The success of the conversation demands that people are willing to engage in the issue rather than turn a blind-eye, or as one student expressed, "feel it wasn't worth his time." Apathy must be challenged. I think the fast did that, when 30 some students were willing to put their lives on hold and 12 stopped eating for four days, it made it hard to ignore. If anything, the most overwhelming response we received was people supporting our desire to act on an issue of conscience.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: We're a little unclear on this question. If you mean "Would this have had a different response at Berkeley?", of course it would have. Then again, if we were at Berkeley, Jesuit values wouldn't have been up for discussion in the first place.

TSC: What is the role of these type of thinkers in America? Does their fight not seem futile in a country so firmly based on a type of thinking so different from theirs?

Miller: Change always starts with minority thinkers. Our most prophetic voices for change are the socially and politically marginalized. Whether the long-term goals are viewed in our culture as pragmatic or rational, we still have an obligation to act.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: We don't feel that it is fair to classify them as a certain "type of thinker." We see them as people who, like us, have given careful consideration to this difficult issue, but have come to a different conclusion in this case. We don't think their fight is futile. When change is necessary, this is the way it begins to come about.

TSC: Is there hope for America?

Miller: When we take action, when we refuse to remain complacent or ignorant, when people are willing to sacrifice their privilege, when we are not pacified by pragmatism, when we believe we have the individual responsibility and ability to create change - yes, there is hope. A better question - is there hope for the world?

Kottenstette and Pivonka: We're not really prepared to answer such a broad question except with an emotional tirade devoid of any real meaning, and we'll spare you that.

TSC: Is there hope for Santa Clara University?

Miller: Hope is dependent on us. If we strive to open mediums of dialogue that attempt to break apathy and encourage students to challenge their fear of "rocking the boat," and when we start to feel as if our voice can actually create change, then there is hope. And perhaps when any student who raises their voice in an unconventional or creative manner is not labeled and disregarded as a "hippie," then the hope is a little brighter.

Kottenstette and Pivonka: See previous answer.