Ethics vs Opportunity: The dilemma of defence companies involvement with universities
In the morally compromised industry of defence technology, arms manufacturing companies pedal out propaganda to all ages in hopes of reeling in a fresh faced, capable and mouldable engineer to lead the next generation of weapons building. We take a look at the young undergrad students who are at the moral crossroads of pacifism and employment, and the industry giants that successfully poach on the fence sitters.
As they stand behind a clipboard and foldable table, the smartly dressed recruiters watch the unsure generation of the future move from stall to stall. At the end of the day the greener non-violent companies were obvious underdogs; cash is king. To young engineering students deciding their future, the number of zeros at the end of their payslip seems to waiver all previous morals and remove the innate pacifism we hope for in society. I can only assume when applying to the very course that led them into the arms of the weapons industry, their personal statements spoke of bettering society, engineering the future of civilisation, and solutions to climate change. All now afterthoughts as they sign their name onto that very clipboard that looks green to their undergrad eyes.
The arms manufacturing (or the politically correct term ‘defence’) companies such as BAE Systems, Thales, Boeing, Raytheon, etc. are all companies that profit incessantly from human conflict. Whilst it is agreeable that the aforementioned have other avenues of income, with some of those even being in sustainable and beneficial projects, the biggest cheques are found in defence contracts. Since the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7th October 2023, BAE Systems’ stock price has risen by 8pct with their market capitalisation now sitting at around £32 billion, all whilst in this period over 15,000 people have been killed in the conflict. Furthermore, according to the SIPRI Top 100 Arms-producing and Military Services Companies, Lockheed Martin’s total arms sales in USD were £43.2 billion in 2022. There are endless examples of nauseous facts like these that demonstrate the dire implications these companies have. So why is it that the University of Sheffield and other top universities not only allow these companies on campus, but form strong lucrative partnerships that encourage students to pursue careers with them?
Photo by Latrach Med Jamil on Unsplash
Photo by Latrach Med Jamil on Unsplash
I reached out to the University of Sheffield for a comment on why they see fit that companies that are known to develop weapons have partnerships with the university? They replied: “The research projects delivered within these partnerships are mostly about developing processes and materials that boost productivity and sustainability.”
This statement highlight that we cannot be overly critical of industry partnerships but also does not ease the mind of the moral implications at play and that need to be catered for.
Moving past the surface level controversy that defence companies possess, I am interested in the individuals working for these companies, specifically the young students that are recruited and morally pruned throughout. It is well documented that young people are impressionable. From the moment we’re born, we become a product of our environment. Throughout life, we look to older generations to take us by the hand and lead us through the rough seas of decision making. When stuck on homework we go to a teacher. When struggling in sport, we seek a coach. And when deciding lifelong careers, we consider many possible paths presented to us by fairs, advisors, teachers, and parents. So why is it right that companies that exist as architects to machines of death are allowed to attend schools and pitch their high paying jobs to children? The same children whom If you said ‘Iron Dome’ to, they’d probably think you were talking about a Marvel superhero.
Photo by ThisisEngineering RAEng on Unsplash
Photo by ThisisEngineering RAEng on Unsplash
Will Toms, a Computer Systems undergraduate student at the University of Sheffield, said: “It is concerning when you think about it. I remember school assemblies and career fair talks from companies like Boeing and Thales. At that age you're not fully aware of the impact these companies have. I remember thinking they seemed like cool jobs to have”.
A former head of an international division at the Ministry of Defence, who wishes to remain anonymous, worked for many years with defence contractors. He did not condone the pitching towards younger people, recounting his time in the industry: "I regularly went to missile ranges and firing exercises. I remember seeing a ship-to-ship missile practice where an old out of service ship was blown up. It snapped in two like it was nothing, I remember thinking at that point oh my god, imagine if that was full of people. When you get older and you see it more and more, the morality and implications of your work starts to sink in.”
When talking to undergraduate students Mr Toms’s criticism of defence companies was not a standalone ideology. However, there were an array of opinions on such a controversial n matter. The most common response when being questioned on the opportunity of working for said companies seemed to boil down to ‘no but money’.
One Automatic Control and Systems Engineering student, who wishes to remain anonymous, confirmed they have accepted a placement with a defence company and justified the work by saying: “It could be considered naïve to expect no wars to happen. Also, on one hand, although wars are objectively bad, it does further our understanding of engineering which can then be used for good. Like in world war two, the jet plane being developed has led to planes now being used for good, like delivering aid and putting out wildfires”.
This justification demonstrates a piece of the puzzle that makes up Pandora's box of defence companies, the way in which they portray themselves to those young students in the balance of morals and money. From website designs, slogans, and weekly newsletters. They waste no space in constructing a company image that paints over the debris and bodies left far away in foreign lands. When conducting my research, I visited numerous ‘defence’ companies’ websites (more than I would've liked) and there seems to be a rinse and repeat formula: Big unavoidable articles about their improvements to be greener, lots of happy looking clean dressed engineers and columns on the companies values . It is almost laughable that on BAE Systems website under ‘My Purpose’ it reads: “At BAE Systems we serve, supply and protect those who serve and protect us, in a corporate culture that is performance driven and values led.” Just two clicks away are detailed descriptions of the 81mm mortar bomb, or the 120mm tank ammunition.
Photo by British Library on Unsplash
Photo by British Library on Unsplash
Photo by Annabelle Tipper on Unsplash
Photo by Annabelle Tipper on Unsplash
Photo by JosephHershMedia on Unsplash
Photo by JosephHershMedia on Unsplash
Photo by Startaê Team on Unsplash
Photo by Startaê Team on Unsplash
Now this is not me saying they hide their skeletons in a faraway closet. As Dave Cave: Head of Programmes, Estates and infrastructure at BAE Systems commented: “Transparency is key and all information necessary to make a career decision, apart from that withheld for national security, is readily available.” I am merely commenting on the façade-like nature that young undergrad students are presented with on initial impressions, and the strategic poise in which these companies convince the morally uncertain.
I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with a University Doctor in Aerospace Engineering who wishes to remain anonymous. I asked him how he ensured the ethical and social responsibility of his research outcomes and the career choices of his students? He said:
“I think awareness is the important thing here. We need our students to understand both the complexities of the aerospace industry and what the ultimate ramifications are should they decide to pursue a career in a company involved in the defence supply chain. The defence supply chain is complicated and there are an enormous number of companies that supply the original equipment manufacturers - these companies might not make the actual weapon systems themselves, but they do supply the materials, components and subsystems that go into them. I certainly wouldn't be critical of a student who wished to work for BAE Systems or MBDA as that would be hypocritical of me, but I would like them to understand exactly what they are getting into - ignorance might be bliss to them, but I expect being on the receiving end of a storm shadow missile is anything but.”
So now what? What does the future hold for the increasingly scrutinised ties between defence companies and universities? Sheffield Action Group is just one organisation that is publicly demonstrating against these partnerships and already gained national attention last year when they occupied one of the University of Sheffield's engineering buildings. I reached out to them for a comment but received no reply. There is some hope that these companies will face repercussions and universities will move towards more ethically sound funding and recruitment schemes. In reality, the increase in global violence continues to churn-in profits for the suit wearers and the future looks bleak. When all is said and done, cash is king.
