Ooh, ooh, I don't see anything unethical about accepting money the mass murderers either.

What's the last count? 440,000 Americans annually?
 

Woo, another one for illiteracy. The operative word in the quote is "permit." The question isn't whether it's ethical to take money from mass murderers (here being defined to include those who don't engage in mass murder, but whatever), it's whether the university should prohibit it. The ethics of taking money from these mass murderers is something you need to take up with the individual faculty.
 

If we're really going to prevent faculty from associating with murderers, wouldn't we have to kick out all the commie profs? I mean, how many millions did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest kill off?
 

Hell, even the UCSA decided not to endorse the idea of eliminating funding from tobacco companies. Given the small number of things they actually do correctly, I'd say that academic freedom must be a pretty strong argument in this case.

This is not the same as the research in a tobacco company lab -- this is UC sponsored research where the professor can't lose his/her job for telling the truth. Not to mention that companies such as Philip Morris (now Altria Group) own things like Nabisco and Kraft. Sure, Oreos can be addictive, but that's no reason to ban research on them.