Ke Aloha Aina received this from a UH alumna who has been following the UARC controversy.
In a conversation today (September 28, 2007), the student member to the BOR, Mike Dahilig, attempted to defend his decision to support the Navy UARC at UH despite the overwhelming student opposition to the proposal, including multiple votes against the program from the Association of Students at UH and the Hilo Student Caucus.
He said personally for him it came down to a question of academic freedom. He said the three-year moratorium on classified research was “a fair compromise.” Ultimately, he said, “the pros outweighed the cons,” so he voted for the military research program. And that he felt comfortable with the tiers of restrictions in the contract; that while classified research would be unacceptable, publication restrictions on the naval research were acceptable. He said that while he is “not 100% proud” of the vote, that he felt he “tipped his hat” to the overwhelming student opposition by voting yes with reservations.
He defended his decision by saying that he spoke with many of his professors, many of them from SOEST, and failed to find strong opposition from scientific professors.
He explained that he saw his role as “a decisionmaker and not an advocate.” He said that the student member to the Board of Regents is obligated to make decisions on behalf of the university as a whole, not just for students. He said that while he has an increase sensitivity to students’ needs, he is “a regent before a student, not a representative of the students.”
When asked why he chose not to abstain in light of the contradiction between his personal perspective and that of his fellow students, Mr. Dahilig said “I don’t like to do that.”
