The militarization of Hopkins
By The
News-Letter on December 3, 20151 Comment
BY MATTHEW
PETTI
VICE
Magazine recently conducted an investigation on campus militarization,
publishing the results in an article called “There Are the 100 Most Militarized
Universities in America.” The Johns Hopkins University ranked number seven. The
authors claimed to use a variety of variables to determine “the closest
relationships with the national security state, and profit the most from
American war-waging.” Whether you agree with the authors’ methodology or not,
this description of the University’s role in contemporary American society
would definitely disappoint its founder, Johns Hopkins, who grew up in a Quaker
home and was raised with pacifist beliefs. In addition, the closed nature of
military research performed on campus hurts the University’s mission “to foster
independent and original research, and to bring the benefits of discovery to
the world.”
We’ve
probably all heard at some point that Hopkins is “America’s first research
university.” However, we’re rarely taught about the University’s namesake,
other than the fact that he had an extra “S.” Johns Hopkins, born in 1795, was
raised a Quaker and continued to adhere to Quaker philosophy throughout his
life. Much of his famous philanthropy was due to the ideology of the Society of
Friends. For those of you who don’t know much about Quakers (or “the Society of
Friends,” as they call themselves), they’re not manufacturers of oatmeal.
Quakerism is a religious movement that emphasizes a personal religious
experience and equality between people. As a result, Quakers have been famous
for their refusal to participate in war and slavery — which makes it all the
more perverse that a university named for a Quaker is now an integral part of
the machinery of warfare.
A casual
observer may not guess that Johns Hopkins of all places ranks alongside such
schools as American Military University in terms of “militarization.” After
all, we’re a school known more for twitchy-eyed pre-meds. However, our
institutional and informal connections with the military are very strong. The
University receives more than half a billion dollars — $649,571,000 to be exact
— from the Department of Defense to conduct military research. Most of this
money goes to the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). While APL conducts some
outer space research, its main purpose is “defense” research, which really
means developing weapons, from nuclear submarines to NSA data collection
algorithms.
Beyond
APL, the Johns Hopkins undergraduate and graduate programs funnel a lot of
talent into the military-industrial complex. It’s not just ROTC, which isn’t
out of the ordinary for a large university or particularly large for an ROTC
program; Hopkins ranked as ninth in the country for “national security
employment,” which is determined by the number of graduates who end up in a job
that requires a Top Secret clearance or higher. Johns Hopkins University is a
leader in recruiting young minds and bodies for the military and intelligence
apparatus — which is not a title it should be proud of, especially when there
is much more pressing and socially useful work for young engineers, doctors and
statesmen. As anti-war activists often say, “You can’t eat a bomb.”
It could
be argued that Mr. Hopkins would not be opposed to all involvement in the
military on principle since he gave material support to the Union during the
Civil War. But Hopkins’s support for the Union Army bears little relevance to
any debate over the state of his namesake today.
The Civil
War was both an existential threat to America, and more importantly, an
opportunity to do away with slavery in North America once and for all; As Mike
Field wrote for The Gazette in May 1995, Hopkins was raised an “abolitionist
before the word was even invented.” The interventions of the modern U.S.
military are nothing like the war Hopkins supported.
The
present dangers faced by the American people are not of the kind that APL’s
research can fix. Nor is there the kind of moral urgency that justified
Hopkins’ assistance during the Civil War; The U.S. government often finds
itself fighting for a faction one day and fighting against it the next. Niall
Ferguson wrote for Foreign Affairs in 2005 that America’s wars are “more like
the colonial warfare the British waged 100 years ago.” Even if you believe that
the American military keeps the world stable, it would be quite a stretch to
say that a Quaker abolitionist would be enthusiastic about creating peace by
force of arms. As many members of the Society of Friends argue, inequality and
racism are much greater threats to peace than terrorism, and the billions of
dollars spent on military research are billions of dollars diverted from
defending against ignorance and poverty.
And even
if it necessary to develop weapons and recruit intelligence agents — why is
this being done at a civilian research university?
Alan
Dershowitz’s speech at the Milton S. Eisenhower Symposium has brought the
debate on academic freedom to Hopkins. While much of the “free speech debate” is
focused on student activists, the real elephant in the room is the presence of
federal government funding. While funding given by an impartial body like the
National Institute of Health might not have a major effect on education,
something like the Applied Physics Laboratory gives an unelected arm of
government massive amounts of influence over the University. Much of the
research done at APL is classified, which goes against the University’s mission
of the free and open exchange of ideas. In fact, foreigners — including, until
recently, our own President Daniels — are not allowed in certain buildings
because of the nature of the research performed there. If it’s necessary to
restrict access to military research, why is being performed at a private
research university where 9.3 percent of the undergraduate body is foreign?
While we
don’t have to become an explicitly Quaker institution just because Johns
Hopkins originated as one, we should at least seek to improve the world in the
ways Johns Hopkins would have envisioned. It might be necessary for someone to
train officers and research means of making war, it’s not necessary for us as a
university. There are plenty of institutions that already exist for this
purpose. Beyond that, we have to decide what kind of values we promote as a
university. Do we value regimentation and service for the State, or do we value
“independent and original research”? Do we want to sequester “dangerous” information
away, or do we want “to bring the benefits of discovery to the world”? If our
answer to both is the former, then we might as well do away with the Hopkins
name along with the Hopkins values.
If anyone
is interested in continuing this discussion or participating in peace activism
on campus, please contact me at mpetti2@jhu.edu.
Matthew
Petti is an undecided freshman from Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
The militarization of Hopkins added
by The News-Letter on December
3, 2015
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment