For nearly a decade, a determined group of academics, students, and staff at the University of Melbourne have waged a campaign against the institution's links to weapons manufacturers. This movement has long predated recent protests over the war in Gaza, highlighting a deep-rooted opposition to the university's association with the arms industry. The recent occupation of the South Lawn and Arts West building by pro-Palestine student protesters culminated in a partial victory when the university agreed to increased transparency regarding its ties to weapons companies. However, the deeper fight to sever those connections entirely is far from over.
A Hard-Won Concession, but Insufficient for Many
On May 22, the pro-Palestine students ended their weeks-long occupation, having secured a commitment from the university to disclose more about its research funding. In June, the university published what it called “transparency declarations,” revealing projects funded to the tune of $43 million by the Australian and U.S. defence departments and at least $7.1 million by defence-related companies. While this was presented as an act of “good faith,” many within the university community viewed the disclosures as inadequate, both in detail and intent.
Anti-war activists on campus see the move as just the beginning of a longer struggle. Despite years of protest and dialogue, they face significant resistance to their calls for the university to divest from its partnerships with arms manufacturers, including those involved in the development of controversial weapons technologies.
An Eight-Year Campaign to Cut Ties
An investigation by The Citizen has shed light on this protracted campaign, revealing the persistence of anti-war faculty and students who have been calling for divestment since 2016. According to meeting notes and interviews, these efforts have been repeatedly met with deflection by university leadership. The university's administration appears determined to maintain its relationships with weapons manufacturers, including giants like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems.
The tension reached a new height in May 2023, when about 50 senior academics and staff members attended an internal meeting titled "Defence-related Research at Melbourne: Opportunities, Risks and Consequences." The gathering took place five months before the outbreak of the current conflict in Gaza, but it did little to address the concerns of those opposed to the university's defence ties. Several participants, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, reported a sense of frustration over the lack of tangible action following the forum.
A Controversial Partnership with Lockheed Martin
The controversy surrounding the university’s links to Lockheed Martin, a major U.S. aerospace and defence company, has been particularly intense. The relationship began in August 2016, when the university announced a $13 million collaboration with Lockheed Martin’s STELaRLab (Science, Technology, Engineering Leadership & Research Laboratory), to be located in the heart of its engineering and science precinct. The announcement sparked immediate backlash from students and faculty, who condemned the partnership as “unethical.”
Over the years, members of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW), a peace and disarmament group, have been vocal opponents of the collaboration. The MAPW, whose members include faculty and students, have raised concerns about Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the development of nuclear and autonomous weapons — technologies they argue pose a significant threat to global peace and security.
University’s Response: Downplaying and Deflecting
According to documentation reviewed by The Citizen, the university’s leadership has consistently downplayed the concerns raised by anti-war activists. In a 2017 meeting with MAPW members, then deputy vice-chancellor of research, Professor James McCluskey, reportedly suggested that the university was not involved in direct weapons research with Lockheed Martin, but rather in projects related to sensors and autonomous vehicles. However, anti-war campaigners argued that such research could easily be adapted for military use, including in lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWs).
The controversy intensified in 2023, as the university issued multiple clarifications about its partnership with Lockheed Martin. It stated that it had only received $3.5 million from the company for PhD programs, and that the $13 million figure referred to Lockheed’s own investment in the STELaRLab. Yet, this did little to quell the growing unease among staff and students.
A Broader Debate on Dual-Use Research
The heart of the debate revolves around the concept of “dual-use” research — projects that have both civilian and military applications. Critics argue that much of the university’s work with defence contractors falls into this category, posing ethical dilemmas for an institution that prides itself on social responsibility.
Speaking at a recent university event, Jon Faine, a vice-chancellor’s fellow, acknowledged the controversy, noting that while some research can serve humanitarian purposes, it can also be adapted for military use. He pointed to drone research as an example — drones can save lives in search and rescue operations, but they are also deployed in combat.
Looking Ahead: A Divided Campus
While the university has pledged to hold a public discussion on its weapons research links next year, the issue remains contentious. For many within the university community, the fight against the institution's ties to the defence industry is not just about transparency, but about aligning its values with those of a global academic institution committed to peace and ethical conduct.
Whether the administration will ultimately heed these calls for divestment remains uncertain, but what is clear is that the campaign to sever the university’s defence ties shows no sign of waning. The battle over the University of Melbourne's defence links is far from over — and is likely to continue resonating across its campus and beyond.
Comments
Post a Comment