Educators fight for less defense spending

Katelyn Boone
Staff Writer

A lecture discussion titled “The Costs of War: Dismantling the Military-Industrial Complex and Building a Peace Economy” and lead by Professor Mark Wood, Ph.D., students and community members were asked to consider the social change that could be brought about if defense funds were reallocated back to the people.

Wood, a professor of religious studies and African-American studies, presented the history behind America’s economic dependence on the military. This dependence stemmed from the United State’s large military defense budgets during and following World War II. Wood and some of his colleagues think the defense budget is taking away from potential funds for education.

“The cost for the annual budget of the College of Humanities and Sciences here at VCU is $50 million,” said Wood. “The cost of one (F-22 Raptor fighter jet) is three times that.”

According to the National Priorities Project, the discretionary federal budget is currently allocating 56 percent, or $653 billion, for military spending. This includes not only military health care packages, research and development and NASA, but also a large defense spending budget. Education, however, currently receives approximately 6 percent, or $73 billion, of the federal discretionary budget.

Nicholas Defilippis, a senior political science major who attended the lecture said he strongly opposes military spending at VCU in programs such as drone research. Defilippis will be addressing his feelings on VCU’s association with building drones on radio station WRIR 97.3 FM on March 25 at noon.

“My organization doesn’t feel like that (drone research and development) is something we want our university to create,” said Defilippis. “We don’t want the potential blood on our hands … Even if it’s not through direct payment (like tuition), we want no connection to it.” Defilippis attempted to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain details about such projects and said he was not given any monetary information.

Mirriam Pemberton, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, spoke about economic conversion to divert federal funds from military spending into other projects, such as renewable energy.

“The biggest key to getting the kind of defense downsizing that our country needs so that we can invest in things like clean energy and clean transportation to reduce greenhouse gases to save the planet for our children and grandchildren is to do a fiscal shift of the pie pieces,” she said.

Pemberton said that as the sequestration goes into effect, our spending will look like it did in 2007 during the height of the Iraq War.

“Sequestration just shrinks the pie … instead, we need to enlarge the pieces that are most relevant for reducing greenhouse gas emission. … If we do that, I maintain that the companies/defense contractors will follow the money, they will find a way to get a hold of it and will find a way to start building windmills.”

Some students want to be a part of an economic shift toward less defense spending on a local level.

“Students can go into the community and cultivate trust to create a better world. Students need to understand that they can be actors and have a role to play to transition to a more participatory government,” said Vivak Jain, a teaching assistant for Wood’s World 210, International Social Justice class.

A reduction in defense spending is also supported by the Richmond Peace Education Center.

“We at the Peace Center support efforts for this ongoing issue. … We believe that you have to put the idea of peace convergence back on the table, and that Virginia should be the pilot case for economics,” said Adria Scharf, the executive director of the RPEC.

Sharf also said we should be investing in students and communities and “stop pouring our nation’s treasure into wars of choice.”