Lockheed donation brings University policy into question

By Kelly P. Walsh

A recent donation to the School of Engineering from Lockheed Martin Company has sparked debate among a group of Santa Clara students concerned about the school's gift acceptance policy. The gift of $50,000 is just a portion of the total $1.5 million Lockheed has donated to Santa Clara in the past.

As one of the largest national defense contractors, many are concerned about the threat to human life Lockheed Martin poses. Many feel that accepting a donation from such a company violates the commitment to social justice that Santa Clara University preaches.

To air the issue, the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics hosted a forum for debate and discussion on Wednesday, April 17 in Bannan Hall, where student commentators representing both the School of Engineering and those opposed to accepting the grant were present.

Student commentators, seniors Mckinsey Miller and Patty Adams, undergraduate history and engineering majors respectively, argued for a more stringent grant acceptance criteria, while graduate engineering students Jaime Guerra and Mohammed Khan defended the acceptance of the Lockheed grant.

Ethics Center Director Kirk Hanson chaired the panel. Hanson is not new to this type of debate, having served two terms as chair of Stanford University's Investment Responsibility Committee.

President Paul Locatelli, S.J., Dean of the School of Engineering Terry Shoup and Vice President of University Relations Jim Purcell were also in attendance.

Some students have urged that Santa Clara return the gift and adopt a grant acceptance policy similar to the University's current "Social Responsibility for Investments" evaluation criteria used for management of the University endowment fund.

The policy outlines five broad, overarching principles used in investment decisions, including consideration with regards to: "Sacredness of Life, Human Rights, Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity, Nuclear Weapons, and Environment."

Santa Clara will not invest in corporations that have practices and/or products that threaten human life, including abortion, euthanasia and tobacco. Similarly, companies with records of human rights violations or worker exploitation, are also avoided.

Companies that exhibit any type of discrimination in employment practices, whose primary business is the production of nuclear weapons, or have committed "gross" ecological violations are also barred from investment.

The goal of these criteria is to ensure that investment policies remain consistent with Jesuit ideals, and affirm the socially responsible actions the university encourages. Some claim that the Lockheed grant defies these ideals, and argue that if the same stringent analysis were applied to evaluate the corporations Santa Clara accepts money from, the Lockheed grant would be turned down.

The issue was first raised in a letter to Locatelli. It was subsequently sent to all members of the university faculty, and finally to the student body in the April 11 edition of The Santa Clara.

Various sentiments were expressed at the forum. Some individuals expressed the feeling that just as divestiture of assets in South Africa was imperative in the 1980s due to apartheid policies, rejection of the Lockheed grant is of similar importance to maintain a renewed commitment to social justice issues now.

Other students expressed concern about the impact on funding and the overall financial health of Santa Clara if the "Social Responsibility for Investments" policy were applied to money the university received as well.

Numerous individuals in the audience highlighted the fact that Lockheed Martin is not solely a defense contractor, and that many of its products and technologies are used for beneficial reasons other than military usage, such as satellite technology for weather forecasting purposes and space exploration.

Both the faculty and student body seemed accepting and supportive of the dialogue and debate.

"The forum was a really good idea. It shows the lengths to which the school goes to let the students speak out. There are so many places in the world where people can't do that," senior Andrew Keller said.

Panelist Miller stated that she had hoped for a little more dialogue with university faculty, but that the student involvement and interest was refreshing to see, and the feedback since the event has been overwhelmingly positive.

"The faculty has been very supportive in letters, recognizing students for thinking critically and for acting upon it. We have received a lot of positive responses. People from all spectrums of the campus were present to show support," Miller said.

Father Locatelli is expected to approve the University's decision on the issue sometime this morning, according to Purcell.