There have been countless debates at the University of Maryland and around the country about divestment and defense contractors’ roles at the university. But much of these conversations focus on how perpetrators of violence use these manufacturers’ weapons, rather than what the companies do for the university’s research and student projects.

This university’s Student Government Association failed to advance a resolution this spring that called on the University System of Maryland to “divest from companies engaged in human rights violations.” The resolution cited human rights crises in places such as Palestine, Myanmar, Guatemala and Yemen.

Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, killed at least 1,200 people in Israel and took about 250 people hostage. Israel has since declared war on Hamas and its military forces have killed more than 41,000 people in Gaza.

Conversations about divestment have resurfaced as the university community deals with the grief and shock of these deaths.

But there is a difference between divestment — a request for the University System of Maryland Foundation to sell off business interests in companies such as Lockheed Martin, Leidos and Northrop Grumman — and cutting research ties.

The university system should not cut ties with defense contractors. Research relationships with these companies are critical to student education and career development.

These companies provide an investment in research and support students who will lead innovation in the future.

The problem that needs to be addressed is how the United States government uses the foreign military sales program, which allows for the sale of military equipment, including fighter jets, to its allies — regardless of notable human rights abuses.

Under Foreign Military Sales, the president or a proxy approves arms sales to foreign countries rather than the companies themselves. The alternative is Direct Commercial Sales, which requires the president to notify Congress about defense contractors’ sales to foreign customers.

But as constituents, we have the power to meet with our representatives to change government-to-government sales, while changing commercial sales may not be as feasible.

This university’s relationship with Lockheed Martin has lasted more than 60 years. But the defense contractor role at the university is about more than partnerships between countries such as Israel and companies like Lockheed Martin, which dates back to its first Foreign Military Sales approval in 1978.

Glenn L. Martin, the founder of Martin Aircraft Company, helped develop the university’s aerospace engineering program, which created alumni such as Jeanette Epps, who became the second Black woman on a long-term International Space Station mission.

Northrop Grumman in 2013 launched the university’s Advanced Cybersecurity Experience for Students program, the nation’s first honors cybersecurity program for undergraduates. The program allows students to engage in cybersecurity training in both an academic minor and living-learning community.

The company also funds doctoral fellowships in the engineering school and supports its Center for Minorities in Science and Engineering and Women in Engineering program, which focus on retaining women and underrepresented minorities, who are often excluded in STEM.

There is a misrepresentation apparent in companies that manufacture weapons versus who uses them. While engagement has focused on investment in weapons manufacturers, true accountability to change their impact is needed from Congress.

On Dec. 9, 2023, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken used emergency authority to authorize the sale of nearly 14,000 tank ammunition cartridges to Israel. While this is a recent example, the United States has a history of using Foreign Military Sales to assist other allies, such as Ukraine, Saudi Arabia and Japan.

The debate has gone on long enough around the university and the division has been clear, but if we unite in which countries the president ought to support with the Foreign Military Sales program, we might see change.

Difficult changes require aggressive advocacy. We need to bind together and demand foreign military sales should not be approved to countries suspected of, under investigation for or determined to have committed human rights abuses.

This request should come in the form of meeting with our representatives on Capitol Hill, starting with an online petition and a letter-writing campaign to Congress and the president. If we want impactful change that limits the use of weapons technology, we must put in the effort.

Autumn Perkey is a government and politics doctoral candidate. She can be reached at perkey@umd.edu.