SAN FRANCISCO “”mdash; The UC Board of Regents has all but
decided to bid for management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
““ a decision that was met with anger and loud protests by a
group of students present at the Wednesday meeting.
Two regental committees ““ Finance and Oversight of the
Department of Energy ““ voted unanimously to enter the
competition for the contract. The rest of the board is set to vote
today and will likely mirror that of the two committees.
The University of California’s involvement with the lab
has been hotly debated due to the nuclear arms research conducted
at the facility.
Though nuclear weapons are not actually assembled at the
facility, the lab produces parts that can be used toward building
these weapons, an activity that has received some opposition from
some students.
Some of those students were present at the board meeting ““
and while the board deliberated and voted, they hissed, booed,
shouted insults at the regents and were once threatened with
arrest.
Though students accused the regents of having corporate aims in
mind in their decision, the regents did not speak of the prestige
or money the university could gain from managing Los Alamos, but
rather the importance of the work being done there.
“We are proposing to compete for the Los Alamos contract
because we believe we can make an important contribution to the
nation,” said UC President Robert Dynes.
National security is the primary concern and the crux of the
lab’s research, according to many regents.
“It is, in the end, about the national interest,”
Dynes said. “The national interest that calls to us … with
our nation facing a new set of challenges.”
The desire to vie for management of the lab came from the belief
that the UC is the most capable candidate for the job.
“I say we are the best competitors,” said Regent
George Marcus, adding that he would only support the decision if he
were convinced the UC could do a good job.
With the sensitivity of the research and development at Los
Alamos, many of the regents took the stance that it was better for
the UC to manage the lab than for anyone else to do so.
The student protesters did not agree. While their comments
sometimes focused on the UC’s involvement with the lab and
the nuclear work done there, at other times, the students’
contribution to the discussion was of a far more personal and
emotional nature.
Students attacked the regents’ characters, saying they
were cowards and calling them derogatory names.
Opposition to the work of the lab is not new and did not begin
when the management competition began.
“People have been opposing this (since) the UC designed
the bomb that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” said Marla
Zuvel, an undergraduate sociology and literature student at UC
Santa Cruz and a member of Students Against War, referring to the
fact that the first atomic bombs were developed in part at Los
Alamos.
By participating in this type of nuclear weapons research and
development, the UC is contributing to technology that can cause
death and destruction and will lead to another arms race, Zuvel
said.
“These weapons shouldn’t exist,” she said.
Twice, both the board and the police deemed that the students
had gotten out of hand, at which point the regents emptied the room
and a row of guards filed in.
For nearly half an hour in the morning, police lined the front
of the room while a crowd of 50 or so students chanted and waved
banners.
They were repeatedly asked to leave, but refused, even upon
threat of arrest.
Eventually, the students struck a deal ““ they could stay,
as long as they made no comments during the regents’
discussion.
In response, the students removed blue bands that had been tied
around their arms and used the cloth to cover their mouths
instead.
But they hardly kept silent.
They made their commentary through fits of coughing, pointed
laughter and vehement thumbs down.
The students were adamant about staying in the meeting room to
hear the verdict because this is the first time since 1943 that the
UC’s management of the lab has even been in question, said
Jennifer Lilla, president of the UC Students Association.
“They saw this as a historic opening,” Lilla
said.
Lilla also said she was disappointed that several committee
members were absent for the vote.
“Decisions that have such import for the university …
you’d hope they have a good representation,” she
said.
Many regents reiterated their support for the UC’s
continuing lab management. But others expressed concern over the
nature of the work being done at Los Alamos.
The UC’s recently announced partnership with Bechtel, a
privately owned engineering, construction and project management
company, makes the situation more concerning for some.
The UC’s relationship with Bechtel will make direct
nuclear development and testing more likely and lead the UC in the
wrong direction, said Josh Kearns, a graduate student at UC
Berkeley who spoke during the public comment period of
Wednesday’s meeting.
“UC will actually be overseeing the management of nuclear
weapons. … I think that’s a wrong step; I don’t think
that is the university’s business,” he said.
Regardless of the type of work at the lab, the UC’s
involvement could divert resources from other areas, the chief
concern of Regent Gary Novack, the only regent to say he would
oppose the university’s competition.
Novack, who did not vote Wednesday but will do so today, said
the UC should not divert resources from the public education
system.
“I think that the same energy and skill could be better
applied to issues within our core business,” Novack said,
citing upkeep on the UC campuses and improving K-12 education.
Novack added that he planned to vote against the bid when he has
the opportunity to do so today.