Weapons, Warwick, and warfare

Starbucks has bled billions of pounds over the last two years due to its alleged involvement with Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Yet many UK universities, including our own University of Warwick, have received no such backlash for similar behaviour.

The concept of universities receiving large amounts of funding from defence companies is not a new one. In the case of the University of Warwick, the pattern can be traced back over 40 years to the formation of the Integrated Graduate Development Scheme under Professor Lord Kumar Bhattacharyya. The scheme attracted a substantial amount of private investment, and most of the engineering intake came from companies such as Lucas Industries, Rolls-Royce, and Vickers Shipbuilders, all of which are leaders in the defence industry. Initially, the scheme was funded by public research grants, but after those ran out, the scheme became privately funded. By 1993, The Economist revealed that 90% of Warwick Manufacturing Group’s (WMG) profits were from industry funding. This meant that the program was almost entirely reliant on funding from companies that gained their capital from warfare.

The problematic nature of this hasn’t been lost on anyone, least of all the students whose work may even be impacted by said defence companies. Allegedly, many students dreaming of innovation and progress find themselves entering a course that is “tailor-made” to produce weapons, guns, and military equipment. This can be supported by the revelation that the University of Warwick has received just under £2 million from the atomic weapons establishment since 2010, and  “at least one arms company official sits on an advisory board” who can then offer input into undergraduate and postgraduate engineering degrees.

It seems ironic that universities are eager to cower behind the veneer of privacy while invading that of their students

So, not only can these companies reap the benefits of our student body, but they also get a say in what we learn. Who do they hope the curriculum benefits more: the students or their shares? The answer seems clear, and it represents how the relationships between defence companies and universities are not a thing of the past; they have weathered the test of time and are just as present today as they were in the 20th century.

However, it feels unfair to speak only of the University of Warwick when we are not even in the top three. Coming in first, Sheffield University have accept £42 million pounds from defence companies and currently has 5 defence officials sitting on advisory boards for engineering degrees. Then, the Oxbridge battle continues as Oxford accepts £17 million, with Cambridge trailing close behind at £10 million.

It is hence not simply a Warwick problem: it is a pattern of universities being so desperate for funding that they are willing to partake in research projects that are borderline unethical. And the scarier idea to consider is that we don’t even know what the money is being used for. According to openDemocracy, many universities refused to disclose the details of  “research projects” that millions have been poured into, citing confidentiality.

An academic from the University of Warwick’s engineering department said it best when they stated, “Without external funding, not much research is possible”

It seems ironic that universities are eager to cower behind the veneer of privacy while invading that of their students. Recently, UK universities have been caught on email, assuring arms companies like Rolls-Royce and Raytheon that they would be happy to “monitor students’ chat groups and social media accounts after firms raised concerns about campus protests.” This came in response to several student-led protests across the country as universities faced pressure to divest from companies with links to numerous global conflicts.

Not only is the “monitoring of students’ social media” a gross invasion of privacy, but it goes against the very freedom of speech that universities are supposed to fundamentally stand for. Students come to these institutions to learn, and a crucial part of learning is questioning and criticising social, political, and economic norms. Are universities now so desperate to secure their cash flow that they will betray the very foundation of higher education?

But what is the alternative? An academic from the University of Warwick’s engineering department said it best when they stated, “Without external funding, not much research is possible”. However, I find it hard to believe that when so many new types of technology are at the forefront of society, defence companies are the only ones willing to work with top universities. Sectors such as the renewable energy sector and the health sector would benefit more from the support that universities and their students can offer them, and they promote a common good in society – something current donors lack.

Universities owe their students a learning environment that isn’t tainted by violence

But is this divestment even possible? After all, these relationships are embedded in universities – how can we possibly see change?

After a year-long review, the University of Cambridge has voted to divest from companies that are involved in producing weapons that are illegal under UK law, even if these weapons are legal elsewhere. While this is far from a full divestment in the arms industry, it is “the first time that the university has excluded investments on the basis of their connection to arms production”, according to Varsity. If a university as historic as Cambridge bent to the will of the students, there is a possibility for others to follow.

Besides delving into the obscure finances of universities, the lessons of this article are threefold. One, Universities owe their students a learning environment that isn’t tainted by violence. Two, Students have every right to demand better of universities and do not deserve surveillance for exercising their right to protest. And three, the biggest lie that you will ever be told is that collective action has never been successful. Do not believe it. If it were true, they wouldn’t be so eager to shut protestors down, to discourage petitioners, and to label solidarity as unnecessary.