University of Virginia Library

Dow Questions

An open letter to Dow Chemical
Corp. was passed out in front of
Minor Hall by a representative of
the Students for a Democratic Society
on Tuesday. To those who
received it and read it, it ought to
raise a few good questions.

Dow manufactures napalm. This
chemical is being used now in Viet
Nam and has caused a great many
deaths and horrible mutilations to
the people there. To quote R. E.
Lapp, from The Weapons Culture,
"If all are compliant and feel no
responsibility, then our democracy
is in jeopardy." One of the most
sacred ends of American society is
the preservation of human life; it is
also at the core of the Judeo-
Christian philosophy. No true
American can be complacent about
the use of napalm; nor can a true
Jew or Christian.

But the open letter of the SDS
shows only part of the answer, only
one alternative, to the bloodshed
caused by Dow-manufactured
napalm. General condemnations are
liberally strewn about, against "a
firm that traffics in blood," against
"profit based on the deaths of
others;" and against "science
wrongly used." Dow is told it has
"no right to recruit people for such
a corporation," that it must "take a
stand" and "justify itself." Perhaps
this would be good. But a greater
teaching experience could be enjoyed
if SDS itself would really
speak up and tell us, the students at
the University, what it is protesting.
Sure, Dow makes napalm and
napalm kills - but it is by no means
clear that Dow's cancellation of the
contract would prevent the use of
napalm. What is SDS really condemning?
Is it the fact that napalm
burns and maims that makes it
"criminal" to produce it? If so,
what about the Marines in World
War II who used flame-throwers to
clear out the caves in the islands in
the Pacific in which Japanese soldiers
were hidden? What about the
incendiary bombs we dropped on
Tokyo which burned out whole
blocks of frame buildings? Teach
us, O SDS - we want to know what
we should protest!! It is "science
wrongly used?" Perhaps the engineers
at Colt who developed the
M-16 are also equally guilty of
"trafficking in blood." And what
about the workers in the Cadillac
tank plant in Ohio? If we must
"disassociate ourselves" from contribution
to such horrors, perhaps
we must disassociate ourselves from
the weaponry of war entirely.
Where is the line to be drawn,
otherwise? Surely it is not the
emotional and sense impact of a
burning body that generated SDS
criticism - an M-16 bullet can kill
just as easily, can shatter a limb or
pulverize a man's guts just as painfully.
Let us ask the SDS - where,
please tell us, do we start justifying
weapons of mass destruction?? Why
not be completely honest with the
students who read the open letter
and tell them that it is blatantly
immoral to use any kind of
weapons at all for the taking of
human life?

Because you must start somewhere,
the answer will be - otherwise
we wouldn't have beaten
Germany in World Wars I and II,
otherwise we wouldn't have been
able to stop Japan's expanding empire
in the Pacific. But where do we
draw the line, SDS? We killed civilians
in the bombing raids on Stuttgart
and on the Polestar oil fields. We
massacred thousands in dropping
conventional bombs on Japan.
Where does the moral course lie?

It is easy to condemn a sensational
weapon like napalm. But if
you do, you must also condemn
weapons which kill a great many
more people in Viet Nam now -
rifles and conventional bombs. And
how can you seriously say, then,
that such weapons of mass destruction
were once justified, twenty-five
years ago? It is unfortunate
that the course of foreign affairs is
not simpler, for the sake of the
SDS. But we are still waiting for
them to teach us - if you must
attack napalm as a weapon of mass
destruction, O SDS, PLEASE tell us
where to draw the line!!!