How can it be said to be a university at all?

ROBERT SCOTNEY
To Mr Academic in 10,

Interesting how meaning mutates over time – to think of the “Left” being part of the New Hate (I wonder who came up with this term?) against China.

But seriously, how is this a Left versus Right issue, or a hate issue? If left means ethics, integrity and dignity, and right means $30 million, then maybe it is a “left versus right” issue. But if you want to get down from your soap box for a minute, I think you will find this is not about hating China – it is about refusing to allow foreign (or any) governments to decide who our universities honor with what. The Chinese government is just using its diplomatic muscle to try to bend the rest of the world to its will – and by defying them, we would be simply standing up for our own. If we are afraid of Beijing somehow banning its students from coming to the university of Tasmania, we must realize that despite such threats, it is not necessarily in Beijing’s interests to do, nor might it be too difficult for the University of Tasmania to find alternate sources of overseas students from Asia and the rest of the world – however this would be a terrible disadvantage to our Chinese students. But all this is just speculation.

The Dalai Lama has actually had a close relationship with UTAS for many years, as have Chinese universities, both relationships being instrumental in creating thriving exchange programs that draw students to the university and enhance its reputation internationally.

But if a university can no longer stand for the intellectual freedom of honoring a diversity of political viewpoints, how can it be said to be a university at all? It is most unbecoming of a university to offer an honorary degree and then withdraw the offer, and even worse when it is a matter of failing to stand up for the intellectual and political freedom the institution itself represents and depends on.

And for James in 13., it is not a matter of whether we believe the Dalai Lama is a saint or a deity (I personally don’t think he would be pleased for us to think of him as either), it must be recognized that from early on in his career he has continued to express concerns that Tibet needs to change its culture and become more democratic, has discouraged violent protest in Tibet, and has at every step tried to reach agreements with Beijing, and is simply now asking them to hold their end of the last agreement, which, from the perspective of his government in exile, they are not (they agreed to allow Tibet political autonomy but remain part of China)- saint or no saint, what our university chooses to honor him is its business, and has nothing to do with our welcome population of Chinese students and academics save they are all potential candidates for such honors, also.

This comment appears at the end of this article, HERE. Comment HERE