The University of Melbourne Student Union is an oh-so-democratic body that left-aligned student groups vie to control so they can advocate for their latest social engineering scheme and fund it using the compulsory Student Services and Amenities Fees.

The announcement of a partnership between Melbourne University and Lockheed Martin for a $13 million dollar R&D facility should have been welcomed as an investment in science, technology and engineering. But the Student Union was not happy. President Tyson Holloway-Clarke successfully moved a motion at a student council meeting condemning the deal stating he was “constitutionally bound to oppose militarism”.

Technically Holloway-Clarke is correct. Due to a broad reaching clause in the student union rules he is bound to “oppose violence or hatred through militarism, nationalism or discrimination”. But while Lockheed Martin is principally known for their defence research and technologies, the purpose of this current facility is to solve the technology problems of the future, not necessarily to develop the next war-winning weapon. In this respect, the Union not only disregard the technological advancements of Lockheed in areas other than defence, but it seems they oppose any research that despite its potential advancement of mankind, has the capacity to be militarised.

If the above example is anything to go by, one would think UMSU have a strong moral compass. Alas, these morals and ethics seemed to disappear when the Union announced they would be supplying “free” drug testing kits to students.

Free, of course, means funded through student’s compulsory services and amenities fees. As student required to pay an SSAF of approximately $300 each year, I am ethically and morally opposed to supporting a program that would operate in a legally grey area, that further lacks evidentiary support for “saving lives” in a university setting.

Holloway-Clarke cites a duty of care to the student community for the decision to provide these kits. I can only assume the warped logic behind this duty of care is as follows: if we are aware students are consuming illicit drugs we should do our best to ensure it is done in such a manner protects students from harm.

The problem with this so-called logic is that there is no evidentiary support that the use of such a kit will keep a student away from harm. The union have seemingly failed to consider that the risk to potential drug users may actually become heightened — students intending to take drugs, in the absence of an adverse reading from the kit, will presumably take the drugs under a perceived veil of safety.

So much for a duty of care. And so much for the left’s definition of morality.

Whatever it does, Lockheed Martin is bad. But a move that may encourage students to dabble in drugs — dabble in drugs with a false sense of safety — is a service to society.