From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: CONFERENCE: Study War No More
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:33:03 GMT

kowan@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Rich Cowan) writes:

>   George Bush is finally on his way out.  The next six months will be our
>best opportunity so far to get out our message about demilitarizing
>education and converting our universities.  Bill Clinton's election is
>bound to effect some positive change.

	Positive for whom?  Defense-related funding is a large portion
of the research dollars that flow into a University or college.  How do
you expect to define defense-related?  Remember that a good portion of
the net you are posting too was started by DARPA, undoubtedly a defnese-
related project, as were most of the computational systems in use today.
In addition, I fail to see where defense-related projects are inherently
promoting warfare.

>  But hidden and powerful forces are
>working to make sure that universities continue to serve the military
>objectives defined for them during the 1980s.

	Universities were never "defined" to promote military objectives,
and in fact the "land grant" institutions were started in the 1800's and
in some states were required to have ROTC programs.  I suppose Iowa State
University is a good example: we made a good portion of the enriched U-235
used in the Fat Man atomic bomb here, and have a UTR-10 reactor operating
here on campus in addition to AFROTC, NROTC and ROTC programs.  Please
tell me how these programs are somehow detrimental to the other faculty,
students, staff, or the general populace of the state.

>  We must bring this debate
>into the open and foster a stronger student movement to counter their
>influence and make our schools affordably educate people to serve genuine
>social needs.

	Last I heard, a ROTC scholarship made college affordable to anybody
who passed the intellectual and physical tests.  Note that the tests do
not have any influence based upon race, gender, or anything save
homosexuality, a practice that is being overcome and for which there is
some reasonable argument for still, though this is not the place to
discuss it.  I merely note that no arguments made thus far show defense-
related funds are inherently worth discounting based upon who provides
them, and further note the implications are not substiantiated.

>    For the past six weeks the University Conversion Project (UCP)
>Steering Committee has consulted with our advisory board and decided to
>put together a National Planning Meeting and Mini-Conference to fight
>campus militarism.

	Does that mean you want ISU to change the name of the Memorial
Union, so named because it lists ISU students who served and died in
various wars?  I doubt you'll be successful; the town of Soldier, Iowa
has lost more men to war than your organization could hope to muster,
and still maintains its name and monuments to war dead.  In addition,
the scientists and students who work on a project are not responsible
for the use it is then put to, and furthermore this research has other
applications that only serve more civil uses.  The Internet is only
one such example.

>We anticipate an
>attendance of 40-100 people from all parts of the country.  The educational
>mini-conference will facilitate dialog

	Yawn!  40-100 people nationwide?  Hardly worth noticing by
even the campus press.  You've *got* to do better than this.

>    We invite you (and everyone you know except the Young Republicans)

	Why not?  If your argument stands on its own merits, you have
nothing to fear from them.  Invite Rush Limbaugh too, for that matter.
Excluding a group, to me, means you can't refute their opinions and hence
have lost the debate before it was staged.

	Well, you posted this at least nationwide, so I expect a
decent refutation of what I've said here.  If not, I can only assume
your group has no rational or reasonable leg to stand on.  If it is
otherwise, convince me that it's worth my hard-earned money to attend,
and furthermore convince me it's a worthwhile cause.  You have not,
of yet, provided any sort of evidence.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d