The student association at Stanford’s prestigious business school has blocked a “defense tech club” from forming on campus. The student leaders, in issuing their veto, cited the potentially harmful impact that a military-focused club could have on “underserved communities” and campus “culture,” according to one student involved in the contretemps. 

A Stanford Business School student, Evan Szablowski, wrote on Linkedin that an application to form a defense tech club at Stanford’s highly selective graduate business school was “voted down by a group of our business school peers, rationalized for various reasons including not ‘addressing an underserved need’ or having enough ‘potential contribution to [Graduate School of Business] culture.’” 

In his LinkedIn post, Mr. Szablowski added, “Especially at a moment of active global conflicts where the DoD is welcoming innovation in critical new ways (Replicator Initiative, DIU 3.0, etc.) and even the NYT is writing about DefTech VC investing – our institution should be a leader at this moment, not shying away from it.”

The decision by the business school student association was widely criticized by executives from a bevy of industries online. 

The famously outspoken head of Anduril, a defense industry firm specializing in artificial intelligence, Palmer Luckey, expressed his dissatisfaction with the university online. In a post on X, Mr. Luckey blamed “totally bogus ‘culture reasons’” for the business school’s decision to reject the formation of the club.

The executive, who has in the past garnered attention in progressive-leaning Silicon Valley for his heterodox political views, added that “Stanford’s rise from regional university to prestige powerhouse was driven by WWII-era Department of Defense contracts.”

A program manager for Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon Naval Plane, Alex Kim, also criticized the university. Writing on Linkedin, Mr. Kim commented, “This is another example of the disconnect between America’s elite and the rest of American society.” Replying to Mr. Szablowski’s assertion that the club did not address underserved needs, Mr. Kim asked rhetorically, “Have they buried their heads so deep that they’re unaware of what’s going on in Ukraine, Israel, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, and Taiwan?”

As Mr. Luckey and others pointed out, the decision by Stanford’s students seemed odd considering its support of other clubs with controversial political leanings, namely the Greater China Club. As Mr. Luckey noted, “The Greater China Business Club specifically names Taiwan and Hong Kong as part of China. … Talk about microaggressions.”  

Beyond the outpouring of support from defense technology and venture funds, Anduril, along with a prominent venture capital fund, a16z, decided to host a launch party for the club in defiance of the university. 

Writing on X, another Anduril director, Matt Grimm, said, “We would never seek to compete against any Epicureans,” referring in jest to a culinary business school club named Epicureans @ the GSB. “But @anduriltech is proud to co-host with @a16z an unofficial St*****d Defense Tech Club kickoff party,” the executive announced.

The Stanford Graduate School of Business did not respond to the Sun’s email requesting comment. 

The decision to disallow the defense tech club was made by Stanford’s Graduate Business School’s student association. One Stanford GSB 2022 graduate and former student body president, Drake Pooley, accused some critics of being “tiring and lazy” for comparing the issue to that of a “culture war.” 

Mr. Pooley added that decisions to accept or reject clubs were often made in the interest of being “financially prudent to not increase student fees. It may make more sense to have a large umbrella org like the Tech Club have a Defense sub-group so there’s no duplicative overhead.” 

A student involved in the process of setting up the defense tech club, and who asked to be identified as a former Army officer and a current MBA student at Stanford’s GSB, added that it was “still too early to understand what happened.” He explained that the students, “ proposed a club, it was voted on by a student committee (basically elected peers), and it was disapproved.”

In a statement to the Sun, a spokeswoman for the Graduate Business School wrote, “In an email to students who were not successful in their club proposals, Student Association leadership reiterated their commitment to pursuing alternate ways to support the students’ visions and bolster the community.”

She added: “The Student Association appreciates students who are dedicated to enhancing the GSB community and it is enthusiastic about providing support to improve the overall GSB student experience.”