Stanford's Handshake Admins Reject Defense Tech Startup Aurelius Systems

Stanford’s Handshake administrators recently rejected defense tech startup Aurelius Systems from Stanford’s job-listing platform. Aurelius Systems works only miles from Stanford developing “edge deployed directed energy,” laser guns, for short. These lasers target enemy drones that are becoming ever more prominent in modern conflicts. 

After raising $2.1 million in funding, Aurelius was seeking “great roboticists,” “who want to build laser guns.” However, after filing their application as a prospective employer, they were swiftly rejected. Stanford’s reasoning? Participation in the “firearms” industry. 

On Handshake administrators can choose to automatically flag employers in specific industries such as firearms, gambling, alcohol and tobacco, and so on. Administrators may then review flagged applications and choose to reject or accept employers based on these preferences. Why then do Stanford administrators feel empowered to reject employers on the grounds of the firearms industry? 

This is a possible development in the broader trend of anti-defense sentiment at Stanford. This past winter, a proposal by several Stanford GSB students to form a Defense Technology Club on campus was denied by a committee of their peers. Meanwhile an Epicurean club, an Improvisational Theater Troupe, and a Wine Circle were all approved. 

Ultimately, the rejection of Aurelius Systems is a question of Stanford Administrators willingness to determine the ideological confines of students. Regardless of one's personal stance, the stance of a university should be non-ideological. Administrators have no role in determining what jobs are ideologically appropriate for students. Without these principles, offering a rigorous academic environment that seeks critical thinking is unfeasible. A marketplace of ideas involves permitting students to make decisions for themselves, based on their morality and critical thinking, free from the whims of universities or their administrators. 

Stanford’s new free speech guidance prevents the denial of events based on the “viewpoint of speakers or participants.” The marketplace of ideas, however, is not limited to speeches but to the choices we make. An honest commitment to that viewpoint, therefore, would prevent the rejection of employers based on the viewpoint of administrators.

If Stanford’s anti-firearms policy was applied consistently there would be no Boeing, no Anduril and no Palantir listings on Handshake. Aurelius Systems is a military defense contractor—not a consumer product. It should therefore be treated no differently to the aforementioned companies. 

It is also preferable that Defense Tech startups compete for contracts and disrupt inefficient legacy primes such as Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. These primes’ projects regularly overrun costs and waste taxpayer dollars. The lack of competition in contracting had nearly squandered the U.S.’s technological military advantage to China, if not for the likes of the Defense Innovation Unit, Palantir, Anduril, and other new entrants willing to disrupt and innovate. 

Aurelius System’s work to develop scalable and economical lasers to incapacitate drones is essential given that drones have revolutionized battlefields in Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Ukraine. Any future conflict over Taiwan will likely see drones both used as an initial shock force and as a means of defense against amphibious troop carriers. The Center for National Security’s report on drones calls “autonomous kamikaze drones,” the most effective way of attacking ships. If the U.S. and other allied nations are to succeed in combating these threats, the best American minds are called to work on problems such as these. 

Indeed for Stanford’s engineers, working on the maintenance of a democratic world order is more meaningful than the next B2B SaaS social media platform for cats. Yes, the necessity of destructive weapons is unappealing, but ultimately a moral one. The military supremacy of America is necessary to prevent the authoritarianism of China, Russia, and Iran from expanding globally. So too is it necessary for the nation’s best engineers to be encouraged—not discouraged—to work towards this aim. From the rejection of defense tech employers to the denial of the Defense Tech Club, the obstruction of competent students from contributing to this effort is a stain on Stanford’s legacy: it must end.