Editor’s note: This letter to the editor by Steve Nuñez will be published in two parts. This section discusses the state of Connecticut’s involvement in the military-industrial complex.
Since Oct. 7, the colonial Zionist occupation has wrought unprecedented destruction of Palestine. Over 15,000 people, roughly one of every 200 Gazan residents, have been murdered, including at least 4,600 children; the most common age of killed Palestinians being five years old. With utter disregard for conventional international law, the Zionist regime has murdered over 42 journalists and media personnel and 200 doctors. In a textbook example of ethnic cleansing, over 70% of Gazans have been forced to leave their homes; an estimated 50% of housing units have been reported as destroyed. Of those still structurally standing, 80% of the buildings in the region — including “buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” — are without electricity. At least twenty hospitals have been rendered inoperable in the most concentrated sustained bombing campaign in the history of the planet, as the occupation has rained more than 25,000 tons of explosives — an equivalent of two nuclear bombs — all while only striking a few dozen of its purported targets.
Over the past week, Zionist occupiers have laid siege on Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza. Notably, prior to a fruitless ground assault on the hospital, the regime struck the hospital with a Hellfire R9X missile designed by the U.S.-based Lockheed Martin, who has been granted a “total contract value of up to $4.5 billion over the next four years” to produce the death machine. The reports sparked outrage across social media with many questioning what sort of person could imagine, let alone design and produce, such unimaginably and grotesquely effective killing tools.
Upon investigating the specifics about who is designing the bombs that have consumed the news cycle over the past month, the answer is Western universities, expressly the University of Connecticut.
Since the establishment of “educational” institutions to ethnically cleanse (read, evangelize) indigenous populations, Western universities have always been right-wing institutions devoted to the protection and expansion of racial capitalism central to the genocidal function of modernity. The University of Connecticut is no different.
Following exponential growth in undergraduate majors, UConn recently announced that the School of Engineering would henceforth be designated the College of Engineering. Over the past few years, enrollment in the discipline has exploded exponentially. In addition to the general neo/novoliberal push for “STEM” education, Connecticut, as a state, is deeply invested in the carnage enterprise; it is home to so many appendages to the dominant profiteers of killing. Despite being arguably the most rhetorically anti-gun (and specifically anti AR-15) state in the U.S., it is home to the Colt Armory (the manufacturer that holds the trademark on the AR-15) and several other major firearms manufacturers. Carnage tycoons like Raytheon, Sikorsky, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and others all have manufacturing infrastructure in Connecticut; from bullets to bombs and the guns, planes, boats and nuclear submarines to shoot them, the killing business is booming in Connecticut. With General Dynamics, Pratt & Whitney (a Raytheon Technologies Company), Raytheon and Lockheed Martin all making the list of top UConn employers, it is no wonder why 65% of the engineers in the state of Connecticut got their degrees from UConn. UConn even hosts an annual “Lockheed Martin Day” where the university hosts the corporate murderers to fly university stakeholders in a Sikorsky UH-60 “Blackhawk” (notably, like most of the US Army’s helicopter fleet, named after indigenous peoples slaughtered by the U.S. government) as a gimmick to recruit ethically dubious, fascist-leaning undergraduate students, which is, of course, despite protest, business as usual.
Fascism is when engineer
I read the missle which hit adjacent to the hospital was a misfire by an Hamas ally.
Why is this letter accusing Isreal allowed to be printed without some rebuttal to misinformation.
One big mis-statement makes all the other ‘facts’ suspect as well.
I’m not judging either side but tend to lean with the Palistinians, as the only solution I’ve seen in 50 years has been new Settlements, expanded Settlements, bulldozed olive gardens and forced displacements.
I am posting this to both parts of this article to react to this piece as a whole.
I am an engineer who has been working in the defense industry for 16 years. I was born and raised in CT, am a graduate of Clemson University and Fairfield University, and I have worked for and collaborated with many of the companies referenced within this article over the years as a Connecticut resident my entire adult life.
While I understand the ethical concerns raised regarding UConn’s ties to defense contractors, the critiques fail to grapple with the complex realities of operating a modern public university. Sweeping judgments cast the issue as black-and-white when pragmatic calculations, competing priorities, and ethical ambiguity exist on all sides.
Firstly, the U.S. economy relies heavily on defense spending, which totals over $730 billion annually. The military-industrial complex, for better or worse, fuels innovation and provides thousands of stable middle-class careers. Abandoning these partnerships leaves gaps in research funding, recruitment channels for top engineering talent, and career pathways for graduates. As a public institution obligated to promote economic mobility for Connecticut residents, UConn cannot cavalierly sever ties with major state employers like Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky, and Electric Boat. Doing so limits opportunities that empower people to build better lives.
Secondly, the author presumes nefarious motivations without considering how university administrators weigh complex trade-offs. UConn likely engages with defense contractors not out of malicious complicity with violence, but pragmatic responsibility as an engine of opportunity. Administrators balance ideals with realities, mission with sustainability. Perhaps they have determined that AI research on autonomous systems or composite materials R&D, while partially applicable for military purposes, also serves humanitarian ends. Does Lockheed Martin’s support for cybersecurity scholarships make the university culpable for theoretical future acts they cannot predict or control? The author forecloses nuance by attacking people rather than ideas.
Furthermore, while profit motives undoubtedly influence decisions, UConn also has legitimate interests in exposing students to career options. If an engineering graduate uses skills obtained at Lockheed Martin Day to design commercial airliners rather than missiles, should we judge the university or the individual? Student agency matters. So, while we could wish for a Platonic ideal of pure research untainted by real-world complexity, that denial of reality serves no one.
Additionally, the sweeping letter provides no constructive solutions, only condemnation. How exactly should the university operationalize the author’s lofty principles? Is UConn expected to single-handedly overcome the moral shortcomings of an entire societal structure? While protest and outrage have utility in raising awareness, effecting actual change requires acknowledging limitations, building coalitions, crafting policies, and yes, uncomfortable compromise. This cannot occur when we reflexively assign malice to those navigating unavoidable ethical gray areas.
Are reforms needed in aligning university-industry partnerships with humanistic values? Surely, I have been fighting that fight where I can my entire life. We must thoughtfully shape technology’s role in society. Yet true progress involves nuance, not reactionary righteousness. Rather than performative finger-wagging, we need open inquiry into complex forces, ethical humility in the face of ambiguity, and good-faith efforts to forge principled, sustainable policies.
These require relinquishing assumptions of ill-intent, robust dialogue between dissenting views, and above all valuing shared hopes over inflated fears. Our shared destination remains peace, justice and human flourishing.