Approving a Navy-affiliated research facility at the University of Hawai'i, in the face of overwhelming campus opposition, would send a message to students and faculty that their views are unimportant, the UH Board of Regents was told yesterday during a lengthy public hearing on the contentious issue.

Opponents have argued that the proposed University Affiliated Research Center would threaten academic freedom and involve UH faculty and students in the development of military weapons. The Manoa chancellor and the faculty and student senates have opposed the idea, which would bring the university $10 million annually for five years.

Although UH interim President David McClain is expected to make his own recommendation soon, the board ultimately holds the power to approve or reject the center.

Prior to yesterday's packed hearing at the Manoa Campus Center Ballroom, the regents had received more than 430 pieces of written testimony opposing a UARC and 130 in favor, said UH spokeswoman Carolyn Tanaka. Fifty-nine people signed up to testify yesterday.

The spoken message to the regents was loud and almost relentless.

UARC opponent Hina Wong grabbed the Hawaiian flag from the back of the room and placed it next to her as she spoke. "You need to remember on whose land you stay," she told the regents.

Wong left the room with the flag, saying she would return it when the university was "pono," or righteous.

It took the Star-Bulletin to report that Honolulu Advertiser Publisher and Gannett Pacific President Mike Fisch submitted written testimony in favor of the controversial Navy "University Affiliated Research Center" proposed for the University of Hawaii. There was no mention of the Fisch testimony in the Advertiser's coverage of the same hearing. By becoming a party to this controversial issue, Fisch puts Advertiser reporters in an awkward position and gives readers to question whether the newspaper can be objective in its coverage. It also prompts some interesting speculation on why Fisch decided to take this position, whether it was at the request of anyone in particular, and what evidence he had to suggest that a classified UARC would create any meaningful number of local jobs?