It was revealed on the news that the University
of Sydney had cancelled the June talk by the
Dalai Lama.

This raises the question - is Sydney University
committed to free and open debate?

As far as I'm aware the Dalai Lama does not
bring politics into his talks - so the only
reason that I can think of why the university would
take this step - is that China forms a key
international student market for Sydney University
and funds various university activities. The
University did not want to take the risk of
the topic of China's relentless efforts to suppress
Tibetan culture being raised.

Is this a desirable stance for a university to take?

No, it isn't a desirable decision if it is purely a political or economic reason Lexi.

However, it may be the Uni was worried about possible violence from some of the Chinese students?

Apparently Tibet is a delicate subject amongst the Chinese.
The Dalai Lama has always called for China to free Tibet...thus he is not a popular figure in that country.

Don't forget where Universities get most of there money Government.

No more explanation needed.

The Uny has far more important things on its plate Lexi.
Like near poisoning young women in forced drinking binges.
Young Liberals putching walls and being aggressively sexist.
No time to talk to a man about a more peaceful world.

Susieonline, if they were worried about the Chinese students they had
a good reason to go ahead and demonstrate to them that in a democracy
you can complain about something, but you have to respect other
peoples opinions.
That surely is at the base of any academic institution.

If it was true that it was cancelled because of Chinese pressure you
have to wonder if there are Chinese government agents among the students.

I feel that student's need to protest the
action taken by the university. The
university has taken away the right of
university members to engage freely in the
exchange of ideas. It has taken away intellectual
freedom from its students. It has not upheld the
university's elementary intellectual and social
responsibilities. And it must not be allowed to
get away with it without any outrage from its
students.

The university has an Enterprise Agreement (following
an earlier outcry) where management restored intellectual
freedom to the agrement along with another cause -
commiting it to antidiscriminatory employment practices.
Management must be made aware that there is a huge
gap between their rhetoric and policy. They can't profess
to be for intellectual freedom - and ban pander to China's
dictates. It's becoming very hard to believe the extent
to which Sydney university manages to still feel entitled
to publicly profess the traditional liberal -humanist
values - and yet subvert them so completely.

cont'd...

cont'd ...

As commentators have pointed out:

"There are few reasons to be surprised at
this state of affairs. Universities political
and economic circumstances encourage them to
pipe to their funder's tunes, whether these be
governments or corporations..."

A senior US academic has stated that:

"Once you have a Confucius Institute on campus,
you have a second source of opinions and authority
that is ultimately answerable to the Chinese
Communist Party and which is not subject to
scholarly review."

Sydney University's China Studies Centre website
boasts that it acts not only academically but
also as "an informed voice in Australia - China
relations."

Hopefully the university students will fight for their
rights and will insist that the university upholds
its elementary intellectual and social responsibilities.

I have seen no evidence in this thread that says China asked the uny not to host the DL.
China has tried to stop federal visits with both sides in power.
While an admirer of the bloke I often, am surprised by the need some have to grant him so much time.

Dear Belly,

Do you really expect either China or Sydney
university to come out and admit openly
that China dictates to the university?

However Tibetan activists and Australian
lawmakers have stated quite clearly that
"Sydney university which is ranked in the world's
top 50 cancelled the June visit by the Noble Peace
Laureate to avoid damaging China ties, including
funding for its cultural Confucius Institute."

China has branded the exiled Tibetan Spiritual Leader -
a dangerous separatist.

Why do you think the PM refused to meet the Dalai Lama
during a 2011 visit? Because she thought that the
Noble Peace Laureate was not an important entity or
was it to avoid damaging a two way trade with China
worth $120 billion last year?

The PM this month led a trade delegation to meet Chinese
Premier Li Keqiang with both countries agreeing to a new
strategic partnership including yearly talks between
both leaders on foreign policy and economics.

China's human rights record in Tibet remains a controversial
issue in Australia. Sydney University's New Institute
for Democracy and Human Rights organised an on-campus
talk by the Dalai Lama during his 10 day visit. This was
overturned by the university.

More than 100 Tibetans have set themselves alight since
2009 in protest against Chinese rule. Most have died.
China brands the Dalai Lama as a dangerous separatist.
The rest of the world does not agree. He says that he
is merely seeking more autonomy for his Himalayan
Homeland.

In its denial of a forum to the Dalai Lama Sydney university
has quite simply made itself complicit with China's
efforts to suppress Tibetan culture.

And again as I stated earlier - a senior US academic
(US is an Australian ally) explained Sydney university's
action in this way:

"Once you have a Confucius Institute on campus, you have a
second source of opinions and authority that is ultimately
answerable to the Chinese Communist Party and which is not
subject to scholarly review."

If the Dalai Lama also takes the Western banking military industrial complex to task about their imperialism,then he should be allowed to speak at any venue.

Dear Arjay,

The Dalai Lama does not have to take any military
institution to task. He is a man of peace and
forebearance and he consistently advocates peaceful
resolutions to problems.
China sees him as a "dangerous separatist"
whereas he has stressed that he does not want Tibet to
be separate from China. He simply wants Tibet to have
greater autonomy. There is a difference.

Good evening to you LEXI...

Being a little old fashioned, I was always under the impression that the function of Universities was to teach, not engage in political posturing ?

It would seem these days both the level and standards of our tertiary institutions in conferring degrees upon their students, is declining significantly ? Consequently, here in Oz, we're being well and truly overtaken by both South East Asian and East Asian tertiary teaching, where there is little demand by some foreign students to study here in Australia ?

Perhaps, if they returned to the old policy of just teaching, without subjugating foreign students in local politics, they may well return to those halcyon days, of a high demand by overseas students wishing to pursue a degree at an Oz University !

Thank you LEXI for an excellent topic !

Lexi my sweet, I know you are a kind & trusting soul, but really it is time to open your eyes.

Once upon a time, in a far off & distant land universities were institutions of learning & scholarship. Alas this was far away indeed, & in a very different time.

To expect to find any ethics or morality in the institutions in Oz today, is being far too optimistic. It just will not be found.

You only have to look to the hundreds of millions in research grants they have accepted for global warming fantasy, when their own senior physicists would have been advising them it couldn't happen, to see their feet of clay.

So sorry for your disillusionment gentle lady, but welcome to the real world, where universities are simply business that excel at acquiring taxpayer funds, & most certainly will never let anything like the truth, or honour interfere with that activity.

Lexi, you asked; "is Sydney University
committed to free and open debate?"

Of course it is! Its just that the debate is more freer and more open depending on how big your cheque book is. The theme song at Sydney Uni is now..."I like Chinese, they only come up to your knees...I.... like Chineseeees." Them there Chinese have one hell of a big cheque book.
So that the debate remains free and open the VC at Sydney Uni thinks that Dalai fella should be able to speak, but just not on his Campos, preferable from a cave on top of Mt Everest.

Arjay do you know if The Western Banking Military Industrial Complex, WBMIC for short have a branch at Westfields, I thought I might open an account with 'em, what's their interest rates like?

Thanks to all the contributors thus far.

And, as I stated earlier - there are few reasons to be
surprised at this state of affairs. Universities
political and economic circumstances nowdays encourage
them to pipe to their funder's tunes, that's for sure.
And in this case - it is obviously China. They have
the China Studies Centre on campus which is ultimately
answerable to the Chinese Communist Party, and which is not
subject to scholarly review. American academics have
commented on Sydney University's stance and have made it
quite clear that China does wield tremendous influence
and that the Dalai Lama is someone that they strongly
object to appearing on any campus which receives funding
from them.

I'm still hoping that somehow the student body at Sydney
University will stand up for their rights and will insist
that the denial of a forum to the Dalai Lama goes against
the university's traditional liberal-humanist values.

The university has to be made to realise that they cannot
feel entitled to publicly profess one thing and then act
totally differently.

Perhaps I am being naive.

Hmmm, China Studies Centre ?
Chinese government organisations buying large farming areas such as
Cubby station ?
Will they be staffed by 457 visa holders ?
Will their products be exported at cost ?
No tax payable.

Is it unreasonable to be suspicious ?
Are we being invaded ?

Nah,Bazz starffed by part time employees from the Golden Dragon take-away in Dixon Street. Order me a short soup...please!

This appears to have been yet another headline grabbing sensationalist egg-beat by the Greens:

<SYDNEY University says it never received an official request for the Dalai Lama to speak on campus, after being accused of withdrawing an invitation for political reasons.

NSW Greens MP John Kaye says the Tibetan spiritual leader had agreed to speak at the prestigious uni during his visit to Sydney in June.

....
Sydney University issued a statement on Thursday saying it never received any official request about the Dalai Lama.

A university spokesman said representatives of the Dalai Lama's office in Australia approached a student about the possibility of arranging a lecture last year.

It says staff discussed possible arrangements but the only time available was during uni holidays in June, when most students would not be on campus.

"The Dalai Lama's office agreed to an alternative proposal for him to address a wider group of students from across a number of universities in the city, including from the University of Sydney," the statement said>

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/sydney-uni-denies-ditching-dalai-lama/story-e6frfku9-1226623175057

It is unlikely that the Greens would ever apologise of course.

Dear onthebeach,

No this is not a Greens beat-up at all.

It's the university's attempt to gain some
credibility - which it has currently lost.

The 7.30 Report as it showed on its recent program -
has the emails from the university -
which tell the full story and the University's denials
don't hold much water. Blaming the Greens - why not
the carbon tax or the NBN?

Here's a link that some may be interested in:

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/sydney-university-stand-up-for-academic-integrity-let-the-dalai-lama-speak

From the newspaper article already posted:

"Sydney University issued a statement on Thursday saying it never received any official request about the Dalai Lama"

That is plain enough for anyone.

It is NSW Greens MP John Kaye muck-raking isn't it?

Typical of the scurrilous headline hunting Greens: besmirching a fine university in one of the world's great democracies, and bringing Australia into disrepute in the process.

Few would trust the NSW Greens stirrers as far as they could kick them. The Greens spawned the political career of dreadful Lee Rhiannon (Brown), with that complete jackass and mental lightweight David Shoebridge following in her footsteps.

The Greens should be sued for blackening the name of the university.

Dear onthebeach,

I still cannot understand what the Greens have
to do with this issue - apart from your obvious
dislike of anyone who chooses to make a comment
on the situation, and happens to be Green.

The fact remains - and as the 7.30 Report pointed
out Sydney university must be held accountable for
its actions. The talk was arranged through Sydney
University's new Institute Democracy and Human Rights
and it was organised that an on-campus talk was to be
given by the Dalai Lama during his ten day visit
in June.

This ground has been covered by The Guardian newspaper,
by Reuters, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, the 7.30
Report, to name just a few.

However, if you choose to believe that there's a Greens
conspiracy - I can't do much about that.

Perhaps you can start your own thread on that topic.

cont'd ...

If you think that the Greens should be sued
for "blackening" the name of the university
then perhaps all the
major newspaper outlets should also be
included in that lawsuit. Because they're all
saying the same thing.

Cheers.

Prior approval should have been obtained from the university administration. It wasn't as the university has said in its release.

The Greens are trying to make political capital out of it. Headline hunting as per usual.

Why are you promoting the beat-up?

You would think that Sydney University would feel privileged that a person of the standing of the Dalai Lama should choose to visit their humble establishment. Not so, its does seem Chinese money outweighs the power of a World leader.
Beach person, there is no headline hunting here by John Kaye or anyone from The Greens, the headlines are there for all to see, including you.

Dear onthebeach,

There's no "promotion" going on here.

This is an online - public forum dealing with
social and political debate. And this topic
has been put up for discussion. The only
"promoting" that seems to be going on is
your "Greens" conspiracy theory.

You can believe whatever you want, I frankly don't
really care.

However the facts remain - that China'suman rights
record in Tibet remains a controversial issue in
Australia. Sydney university's new Institute for
Democracy and Human Rights organised an on
campus talk by the Dalai Lama during his 10 day
visit in June. The university was notified and agreed
to it from the beginning - as the emails shown on
the 7.30 Report showed. And then the university changed
its mind forcing the Institute to find other alternatives
for the Dalali Lama's talk.

The university now says it did not receive an "official
request from the Dalai Lama," which is simply fudging
things and trying to save face. It was the Institute
that had contacted the Dalai Lama - with the university's
full knowledge.

cont'd ...

One thing I had forgotten to mention and
it may be of interest to you because you
had expressed an interest in Lithuania
in one of your posts on another discussion
is the fact that Tibet's spiritual leader the
Dalai Lama will come to Lithuania in September
this year. His representative in London,
Thubten Samdup, confimred this on Friday.

Of course Lithuania can always change its mind,
as Sydney university did. It shall be interesting
to see whether it does.

I wonder whether they have Greens in Lithuania?

cont'd ...

Alternatively, I wonder whether Lithuania
has any trade-agreements with China?

Once again,

<Sydney University issued a statement on Thursday saying it never received any official request about the Dalai Lama.

A university spokesman said representatives of the Dalai Lama's office in Australia approached a student about the possibility of arranging a lecture last year>

The university administration cannot be bypassed by a student activist who takes things into her own hands.

And,

<It says staff discussed possible arrangements but the only time available was during uni holidays in June, when most students would not be on campus.

"The Dalai Lama's office agreed to an alternative proposal for him to address a wider group of students from across a number of universities in the city, including from the University of Sydney," the statement said> [from the link posted previously]

What can be better than that? The Dalai Lama gets to address students from across a number of universities, including the University of Sydney.

That being so, the only ones who stand to gain from this continued muck-raking to get headlines would be the protest party, the NSW Greens.

Once again:

1) Sydney university has gone to great lengths to
forbid the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights
from using its logo, not allowing any media coverage
of the event and disallowing Tibetan activists to attend
the talk.

2) They overturned the decision for the talk - to move
the event off campus stating that no university staff
member or academic was allowed to be involved in the event.

And this from a university that has an Institute for Democracy
and Human Rights on its campus?

Here's a link on what the Institute teaches:

http://sydney.edu.au/arts/idhr/human_rights/index.shtml

You'd think that the university which after all according
to its own Facebook site states:

"Students and researchers from all over the world
form a community dedicated to unveiling new insights
that change the world around us."

Then why did the university not issue an invitation to
the Dalai Lama?

Oh, I forgot - it's a Greens conspiracy.

What a joke!

However bravery and ideals always win in the end.

Beach person, there is no Green's conspiracy here. The only conspirators are the 'hierakies' at Sydney University who fear allowing the Dalai Lama on site might upset the Chinese and could see the cash cut off, end of story! These people will sell out human rights for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver. I think they are hypocrites, nothing less.

Lexi, <1) Sydney university has gone to great lengths to
forbid the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights
from using its logo, not allowing any media coverage
of the event and disallowing Tibetan activists to attend
the talk>

Forbid?! Honestly now, you really are coming the raw prawn. What reputable organisation would allow anyone to use it logo? Outside of official purposes?

The simple fact remains that prior approval was not obtained.

Anyone coming onto university property and intending to use its facilities had better go through the proper channels and get the necessary proper approval. Insurance alone would require that and there is duty of care - protection of university assets, staff and students.

Lexi, <2) They overturned the decision for the talk - to move
the event off campus stating that no university staff
member or academic was allowed to be involved in the event>

NO. The proper approval was not sought and obtained in the first place. By what right or power did that student activist take it upon herself to take the decision out of the hands of the university administration?

That is the whole problem with activists isn't it? They are long on what they claim as their 'rights', and they think that others should just concede to their wishes. They are not special. Apply for permission giving full details and adequate lead time for consideration and decision like anyone else.

It is the NSW Greens stirring. What else do they do?

PM Julia Gillard called the Greens out as a protest party, nothing more. She was right.

I would like to Thank everyone who has
taken the time to contribute to this discussion.
For me personally, it has been quite an experience,
being a graduate of the university - and also having
worked on campus - I am familiar with the politics
that goes on there.

It's been interesting to read not only the many
media sources on the topic but also the comments
found on the university's own Facebook site.

This has ultimately been a worthwhile discussion.
However, I think that it has now run its course.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for you attempts at reason.

The Dalai Lama summed things up rather well:

"The ultimate authority must always rest with the
individual's own reason and critical analysis."

See you on another discussion.

The reasonable act would have been to get prior approval from the university administration.

The university has said that was not done. Fair enough in a free, democratic society that believes that consent should always be obtained first.

Typical of the totalitarian Greens to believe otherwise, that what they want must always prevail.

onthebeach,

Give it a rest old chap.

The Institute did get the university's approval.
Get your facts right.

The university changed their minds. And now are trying
to get out of it on a technicality - that they did not
get an "official" request from the Dalai Lama.
What a joke.

Get rid of the Greens chip on your shoulder - if you
want to be taken seriously - otherwise nobody will
bother reading your posts in the future.
You're coming across as somewhat of a fanatic.
Try lifting the bar on your debates:

"Two men look out through the same bars.
One sees the mud, and one the stars."

(Frederick Langbridge).

Try looking up.

Lexi,

The university administration has said otherwise, as you are aware from the news link I posted earlier,

<SYDNEY University says it never received an official request for the Dalai Lama to speak on campus, after being accused of withdrawing an invitation for political reasons.

NSW Greens MP John Kaye says the Tibetan spiritual leader had agreed to speak at the prestigious uni during his visit to Sydney in June.

....
Sydney University issued a statement on Thursday saying it never received any official request about the Dalai Lama.

A university spokesman said representatives of the Dalai Lama's office in Australia approached a student about the possibility of arranging a lecture last year.

It says staff discussed possible arrangements but the only time available was during uni holidays in June, when most students would not be on campus.

"The Dalai Lama's office agreed to an alternative proposal for him to address a wider group of students from across a number of universities in the city, including from the University of Sydney," the statement said>

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/sydney-uni-denies-ditching-dalai-lama/story-e6frfku9-1226623175057

I am sure that if there was any documentation or record to prove otherwise the mendacious, frivolous, publicity-seeking Greens would be flourishing it about.

BTW, the news article mentions the Greens in there with their wooden spoon. The stirrers that they are. Yet according to you anyone who mentions that is a 'fanatic'. Maybe you should review your own position.

Dear onthebeach,

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I didn't mean to cause any offense - just
that I was finding things somewhat tiresome.
However as we seem to be going around in circles
and not making any progress - may I politely
suggest we stop.

You're convinced you're right - and I have a
different opinion to yours.

Nothing constructive will be gained by our
continuing in this vein.

See you on another discussion. And my apologies if
I've caused any offence.

cont'd ...

The following may be of some interest...
Or perhaps not:

http://tibettruth.com/2013/04/17/has-sydney-university-snubbed-dalai-lama-to-appease-china/

While people have had some sympathy previously for the Dalai Lama, his credibility and that of his supporters is diminished by this incident.

How many times does the university have to say that its approval was not sought by the Dalai Lama's organistation?

Oh, poor editing by me again. That should be organisation.

Dear onthebeach,

How many times does it have to be made clear
that correspondence obtained by the 7.30 Report
shows that university authorities ticked off on
the plan in January. A venue was settled on the
campus's theatre complex, the Seymour Centre, and
staff from the university's brand new Institute for
Democracy and Human Rights began to organise the
event.

On Aril 2nd, the event was cancelled.
Despite his initial enthusiasm the man in charge of
the university had a change of heart and since then
has been back-peddling to save his and his university's
reputation which is the one in question - not the
Dalai Lama's. After all it was the university that had
extended the invitation to him in the first place.

The excuses the
university is no giving - are simply not good enough.
At least - not to me.

See you on another thread.

New South Wales Greens MP John Kaye was quoted as saying that the Dalai Lama had agreed to speak at the prestigious university during his June visit to Sydney, but the university canceled the event “to protect its financial ties with the Chinese government” Kaye said.

How would he know? It is speculative gossip by the Greens protest party, the experts in stirring.

The university administration has said formally it did not receive an official request from the Dalai Lama's organisation and no approval was given. Also, why should it allow anyone to use its logo? To top it off, why should the university explain further?

Dear onthebeach,

Concerning the university's logo...

You don't seem to understand the fact that university
Departments, faculties, institutions, et al - all use
the university logo because they are part of the university.
And once again I shall try to make it clear to you that
correspondence obtained by the 7.30 Report shows that
university authorities ticked off on the plan in January.
That a venue was settled on the campus's theatre complex,
the Seymour centre and that staff from the university's
brand new Institute for Democracy and human Rights
began to organise the event.

On April 2nd the even was cancelled. Despite his initial
enthusiasm the man in charge of the university had a
change of heart. Political leaders, students, and university
staff don't buy into the university's back peddling.
Neither do I.

And you've got it all wrong.
It isn't a "Greens" conspiracy at all.

What it is - is a Communist plot!
;-)

See ya.

Glib reference to 'university authorities' means anything and nothing. But in this case it rather obviously did not include the university administration that was supposed to be contacted for approval and was not. The university has said that.

Likewise, authority to use a logo should never be assumed.

But still, now that you make pointed reference to a "man in charge", he must at fault by definition LOL

The Greens are getting no traction on this. It is an egg-beat.

Beach person, I am sure you are just trying to fuel the debate and are not so naive to believe the spiel now being peddled by the SU 'hierakies' in relation to this matter. Imagine just for one second if you can, Barack Obama is down to speak at SU in a couple of months time but due to a clerical error official approval had not been granted. Can you imagine the VC at SU saying "So sorry Mr President, you can't speak here, no official approved, but we do have an alternate venue for you, in the boom docks."

Dear Paul,

Another interesting thing is the Confucius Institutes
world-wide, and the work they do on university campuses.
Sydney university
has one on its campus (of course). Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over_Confucius_Institutes

They forbid topics like - Tibet, Dalai Lama, Taiwan, Tianammen Sq.
human rights discussions and they peddle their "one China" policy.
I can't understand why a conservative like Beach person would
support a totalitarian regime like China. His hatred of the
Greens must take priority over reason and facts.

Lexi,

Why did you call me a 'conservative' and play with my username ('Beach person') just because I reiterated some rather obvious facts?

The Australian university the Greens are intent on trashing has stated simply and plainly that the Dalai Lama's organisation did not seek the necessary approvals from university administration as it should have done.

Fair enough, approval should always be sought through the proper channels. It should never be assumed. Quite simple really and totally undeserving of the wild allegations being made against the university in this thread.

If you're "onthebeach," then in everybody else's
mind you are perceived as a "beach person,"
maybe even a "surfie."

You in your own mind are right.
And you believe what you believe.

That is something I can do nothing about.

I called you a "conservative" for the simple reason
that although not all conservatives are stupid.
There are an awful lot of stupid people who
happen to be conservative. They always look
for a scapegoat, and prefer to ignore facts.

The university is looking forward to hosting the Tibetan spiritual leader - in June.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-23/university-of-sydney-to-host-dalai-lama/4647110

With public pressure being what it is, SU would have little option other than to back peddle and have the Dalai Lama on campus to speak. Unfortunately for the 'hierakies' down at SU they don't come out smelling to good from all this. Must say nice to see a bit of compromise from all concerned and who wouldn't want such a person as the DL to front up at their humble establishment and chin wag for a while.
Beach person, was me who referred to you as Beach person in the first place, not meaning to insult, just me. Anyway you can call me The Little Green Pixie if you like. I did like that one, or any dog name you can think of, can't be insulted, experts have tried and failed, don't think you are that kind of person anyway.

The statement by Institute for Democracy and Human Rights (IDHR) director John Keane does not say that prior approval by the university administration is superfluous:

"The University of Sydney and IDHR remain firmly committed to the principle that academics are free to invite to our campus anyone who has a legitimate contribution to make to public debate," Professor Keane said.
It appears to confirm not challenge, what the university has been saying all along, that prior approval by university administration remains necessary. "Free to invite" does not obviate the requirement for prior consideration and approval. Considered dispassionately, prior request and approval would be obligatory to avoid clashes with other commitments and activities anyhow.

There is a lot of politics and speculation in the ABC's report.

However the good thing is that approval has been sought and given and the event will now take place.

OTB, I assume you never had a problem with the Dalai Lama speaking on campus, don't think any fair minded person would. What I took acceptation to was a perceived attempt at "censorship" by SU, knowing full well that the Chinese Government do not warm to the Dalai Lama as he is seen as a focal point for Tibetan dissidents throughout the world, and the Chines government like to silence him whenever possible. Naturally it is only right that the university be informed as to when such an important person would be on campus and proper arrangements be put in place for such a visit, a bit of logistics. Possible the VC should be part of the welcoming party etc.
To me its not for the VC or anyone place to dictate who will, or who will not, speak on campus. If anywhere should be open to free speech it is a university campus. I would protest if they denied the Yellow Wiggle the right to speak after being invited.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for the link.
Students at Sydney Uni were going to have a
huge protest today - but it looks like they
now won't have to. It really is great news.
And it's another win for the staff and students.
The staff had gone on strike in March to have
their Enterprise Agreement include intellectual
freedom (which had been left out) put back.
They won that right. It also appears that the
Dalai Lama's office had been in contact with the
university's administration all along. So the
university has finally decided to do the right
thing. Applied pressure did work - finally.

cont'd ...

Here's a link that may be of interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/04/18/intellectual-freedom-under-threat-sydney

Since when was NewMatilda an authoritative source?

Some of the letters in reply indicate the political nature of the activists as well an any alleged poor decisions of their target, the university administration. As one poster said,

<But overall I'd say the Dali Lama has had more than a fair run; who in Australia doesn't know his title. The alarm has likely, "nothing to see here">

It was always an eggbeat because there was never censorship or a gag, alternative arrangements were suggested previously. That was noted in the link I posted originally.

@Paul1405, <To me its not for the VC or anyone place to dictate who will, or who will not, speak on campus. If anywhere should be open to free speech it is a university campus. I would protest if they denied the Yellow Wiggle the right to speak after being invited>

Yet activists do protest the right to speak of people they are opposed to and they demand gags and legal action by government quangos such as the Human Rights Commission. So what actually applies is that activists are one eyed and any who march to their drum are welcome whereas others are not.

To me free speech means just that and presumes the right to offend. That is not something that sits well with some of those here who assert that this august Australian university invokes censorship through links with a foreign government.

It is unreasonable to suggest that anyone should be able go onto a university campus at any time for any purpose, and that the university assets, logo and status should be up for grabs for anyone to convert to their own purposes.

Again, nothing to see here. The Greens were out as usual to milk it for headlines.

It is important to have a media outlet which is
rational and principled without being biased to
any social or political position. New Matilda is
such a place. It would be difficult to agree with
every view expressed in the columns of New Matilda,
but it would be equally difficult to disagree with
them all. And it would be impossible to criticise any
of them as irrational or foolish.

As a poster stated taken from the link I cited earlier:

"The press release put out by Sydney university...
appears to deny that any meeting with
the Dalai Lama was planned to take place in the university ...
this is difficult to square with the email-trail (which is in
the possession of the ABC). One on January 7th from an
academic colleague to the official organiser of the
Dalai Lama's Australian tour says:

"The good news is that the Vice Chancellor has given the
nod of approval for us to host His Holiness. The VC is also
quite happy for us ...to handle the event with the support
of Sydney ideas in terms of logistics, venue, security,
et cetera..."

Can't be clearer.

Taken from another website:

"Intellectual and academic freedom of inquiry is central
to the mission of all Australian universities and is
internationally acknowledged as an essential and defining
characteristic of university education. Universities have
an important role in ensuring that freedom of inquirey and
freedom of speech are central to the mission of each
institution. It underpins the creation and
dissemination of new knowledge in open and transparent
ways ... This freedom is defined in terms of the rights of
academics to undertake activities, connected to
their roles as teaching and research staff, without
hinderance or fear of reprisal. It also included the right
to pursue topics and areas of research without interference or
pressure by insitutions ..."

Academics and universities are not in the business of
censoring intellectual freedom. Their responsibility is not to
deny, but to add, enrich, stimulate and amplify the
knowledge of their students.

cont'd ...

A Final Thought:

"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire
in jail. Somebody in Franco's Spain sent
Lorca, their greatest poet, to death before
a firing squad. Somebody in Germany under Hitler
burned the books, drove Thomas Mann into exile,
and led their Jewish scholars to the gas chamber.
Somebody in Greece long ago gave Socrates the
hemlock to drink. Somebody in the USSR banned
Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak.
Somebody at Golgotha erected a cross and somebody
drove the nails into the hands of Christ.
Somebody spat on his garments.
NO ONE REMEMBERS THEIR NAMES."

Milton Meltzer, "Four Who Locked Horns with the Censor."

That does not pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Of course activists would cherry-pick to justify their own rage. As far as the Greens go, you are lucky to get half of the story and it would be twisted to suit their little political games anyhow.

None of it dispels the reasonable request of university senior management for prior notice and approval through the proper channels.

What is being dismissed as a 'nod of approval' from the Vice Chancellor is taking responsibility and being finally accountable. It is duty of care, due diligence in decisions and all of those essential things that go with being a CEO.

All of those activists expect to be safe on campus and that all services are operating as required. If anything ever went wrong it is the Vice Chancellor that the same activists would be holding responsible and demanding compensation from. They wouldn't be so casual and cavalier then. Honestly though, doesn't anyone even consider the insistence by the university's insurers on firm, stated administrative policy and due process in decisions?

There is a policy and a process why not follow it? It is the very least they can do when expecting to use university facilities, and the protections therein.

An update from The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald,
and I quote:

"The University of Sydney has agreed to host a lecture
by the Dalai Lama in June after previously being
accused of withdrawing the invitation for political
reasons."

"The university said it never received any official
request for an appearance by the Tibetan spiritual leader.
However, emails from the university's vice chancellor
Michael Spence contradict this statement and referred to a
decision to "withdraw support for hosting His Holiness
the Dalai Lama's planned speech, the ABC reported last week."

"The Report led to allegations that Sydney university, which
has close ties to the Chinese Government dropped the
invitation for political reasons."

"The university's Institute for Democracy and Human Rights
(IDHR) and representatives of the Dalai Lama have now agreed
to host an on campus lecture for students in mid-June, IDHR
director, John Keane said."

"It is hoped the mid-June event will form part of a
determined commitment of the University of Sydney to
develop a constructive dialogue on matters concerning Tibet
and the wider region," he said in a statement on Tuesday."

"Mr Keane said IDHR and the University of Sydney also
remain "firmly committed" to the principle that academics
are free to invite anyone to the campus who has a
legitimate contribution to public debate."

"The Dalai Lama will speak under the theme "Education Matters,"
in the event open for university student only."

"The Dalai Lama no longer makes political statements."

OTB, I could not agree more; "To me free speech means just that and presumes the right to offend" FREE SPEECH, an inalienable right. PEACEFUL PROTEST, another inalienable right. To have a strong democracy these rights and others have to be maintained. I'm sure you would agree.
Where dose a university and its faculty fit into the scheme of things. Not only is a university a place of learning it is also a place of enlightenment where radical ideas should be canvassed and discussed.
In the case of Sydney University this was so important to the faculty that they had it incorporated into their work place agreement, their right to invite people to speak on campus. I agree there must be a procedure in place to facilitate this, but I do not see a case for the likes of the Vice Chancellor to arbitrarily deny free speech.
Lexi's last post tells the whole story,could not be clearer.

Dear Paul,

Thank You.

Paul1405,

Activist rhetoric does not disturb the simple incontrovertible fact that it is the university administration that is responsible and accountable for what happens on campus not the academic staff.

That is an onerous responsibility for the university administration and it is right to insist on due process for obtaining approval, particularly where there are possible risks to persona and assets.

If you go back to my post of Tuesday, 23 April 2013 8:58:23 PM, the statement by Institute for Democracy and Human Rights (IDHR) director John Keane does not say that prior approval by the university administration is superfluous or can be assumed. He can invite byt first approval must be obtained. Approval is not automatic. It must be sought and obtained in each case.

You unfairly allege that the university administration arbitrarily denied free speech. A charge that is obviously nonsense because the Dalai Lama has been given enourmous air time in Australia, there was a suitable alternative available for other university students to attend as well and to top it off, the Dalai Lama's vist to the said university has been approved.

Just commenting outside of this case as a past and present student, and as a taxpayer, the vast majority of students have rights too. No radical group or political interest has any 'right' to enter the university campus, use the facilities, or cause disruption. Each should go through due process for approval and the administration should always ensure there is no disruption to students and lectures, or denial of access to buildings and facilities.

Also, unless a business case for very clear and measurable benefit to students can be made prior, the university's resources should not be made available without charge either to the department concerned or to the group invited.

As for the Greens, this is an election year and they have their wooden spoon going for headlines.

Facts do not cease to exist
because they are ignored.

And the facts remain - as stated earlier (time
and time again) -
and obtained from all the major media outlets.

The University of Sydney had agreed (back in January)
to host a lecture by the Dalai Lama in June.
And emails obtained by the ABC and reported on the
7.30 Report confirmed this fact. The University's
Institute for Democracy and Human Rights (IDHR)
and representatives of the Dalai Lama then began to
go ahead and organise the event.

Then the University had a change of heart and cancelled
the event. The ABC's Report led to allegations that
Sydney University which has close ties to the Chinese
Government dropped the invitation for political
reasons. After considerable pressure, including a
large student demonstration that was going to take place
on Wednesday,
the University, feeling the pressure, had a change of heart.

And rightly so. The University under its Enterprise Agreement
which guarantees intellectual freedom to its faculty and
students (it is a legal document) is obliged to remain
"fairly committed" to the principle that academics are free
to invite anyone on campus who has a legitimate contribution
to public debate. The Dalai Lama well and truly qualifies
for this.

These ARE and REMAIN the facts - no matter what other spin
somebody may be desperately trying to give on this thread.
Any reference to this being a "Greens" plot is ludicrous.

Once again - let it be made quite clear that:

These are the facts, and they don't cease to exist because
they are ignored

Lexi,

The CEO of any organisation, in this case the Vice Chancellor, is ultimately responsible and accountable. As mentioned previously but you chhose to ignore it, while academics may invite, they are not ultimately responsible and do not approve. That is why the correct procedures must be followed to obtain approval. That would involve an application with all details from the person or organistion seeking permission.

The university administration has said, as you are aware from the news link I posted earlier and which you prefer to ignore,

<SYDNEY University says it never received an official request for the Dalai Lama to speak on campus>

Yes, there is evidence of the Greens stirring, which you also deny despite the evidence in news reports. Pre-election protests in lieu of costed policies.

You judge the university as guilty of all sorts of noxious things without any proof and you continue to do that despite approval for the visit now being given. Doesn't that strike you as unfair?

Dear onthebeach,

Perhaps this will clarify things for you.
And explain what I consider is fair.
It's taken from an article that I've just
received:

"After a loud public outcry. Sydney University
has decided that it can host the Dalai Lama after all.
In the same week that the ABC broke the story of the
University of Sydney's perverse handling of a visit by
the Dalai Lama, the man himself was being welcomed by
Cambridge University's Global Scholar's Symposium.
The world-leading university said it hoped the Dalai
Lama's talk would, "motivate scholars to use their careers
to help reduce violence and promote peace."

"In under a week, 15000 individuals signed a petition urging
the University of Sydney to preserve its integrity by
reversing its decision to quietly distance itself from
the Dalai Lama. Yesterday the University quietly backpeddled.
In June the Dalai Lama will be welcomed on campus to give a talk
to students, organised by the Institute of Democracy and
Human Rights, under the theme, "Education Matters."

The university has made a wise choice. And while it is
regrettable that the right decision was not made at the outset
the public outcry that ensued sends a very strong message to any
other university or institution that may face such choices
in future.

We're used to Australian politicians and business leaders
kowtowing over Tibet and other human rights issues. We may not
like it, but it no longer shocks us. However as the author points
out,

"For one of our most prestigious universities to have
made such a decision struck an altogether different fear...
For scientists, scholars, and all thinking people -
there is nothing more sacrosanct
than free inquiry unimpeded by ulterior interests. It is a
core value, explicitly recognised as a pre-condition to a
healthy society."

"We find exacttly the same understanding in the opening lines
of the University of Sydney's OWN "Charter of Academic
Freedom."

cont'd ...

The author states that:

"It is through free and clear-minded investigation that
we overcome our collective hubris and ignorance and learn
to build a global community. Allowing interference in this
basic pursuit of knwledge and wisdom, whether through
commercial interests or a political agenda has consequences
not only for vulnerable cultures and nations such as
Tibet, but ultimately for us all."

Distress over the University's withdrawing its support for
the planned event with the Dalai Lama was compounded by
the fact that the University's Institute for Democracy and
Human Rightswas involved in negotiations from the start,
and eventually making a compromise with the VC.

Another valid point that the author makes is that,

"Three years ago the University received a substantial grant
from the EU for advancing education in democracy and human rights
in the Asia - Pacific Region... A university that has
positioned itself as a regional leader in the promotion of
democracy and human rights must be willing to uphold this
principle."

"Uniquely the Dalai Lama has devolved his own political
power in order to encourage democracy among exiled Tibetans.
He has never wavered from a commitment to non-violence
and has spent decades travelling the world to promote
education, universal responsibility and inter-religious
understanding."

"These views have brought the Dalai Lama under heavy attack from
vested interests. He is in short, precisely the kind of voice
that any institution dedicated to free inquiry needs to
champion. The world's leading universities, from Harvard,
MIT, Oxford and Cambridge, have all understood this."

"The University of Sydney is still learning."

"It's no secret that universities, both here and overseas, face
both direct and indirect pressure to distance themselves
from the Dalai Lama and any issues relating to Tibet."

"In 2011, Stanford University turned down $4 million from the
Chinese Government to establish a China Studies Centre and a
Professorship. Why? The funding was conditional on the
Centre not discussing Tibet and other matters that might
embarrass the Chinese Government."

cont'd ...

"Our cherished universities were founded on precisely
the values of education, unimpeded enquiry, honesty
and integrity so eloquently and steadfastly championed
by the Dalai Lama. Criticism of Chinese investment in
overseas universities has often centred on the scores of
state-funded "Confucius Institutes" that have been popping
up like mushrooms on campuses since the mid 2000s."

"We may value the language education and other services provided
by such programs but must acknowledge that their function
is fundamentally different from what we traditionally
associate with our universities. Put simply, when Party-run
Institutions partner with our universities, it is not in the
spirit of academic discovery but primarily for advancing the
agenda of the Chinese State. Just as China's state media and
judiciary exists primarily for the enforcement of Party policy
rather than the protection of truth and justice. This is not
a value judgement on either of our cultures, but simply
recognising a spade as a spade."

Finally the author summs us that,

"Ultimately, if we believe that independent enquiry, democracy,
human rights, and a willingness to weigh long-term consequences
over short-term gains are all fundamental to a peaceful and
sustainable future, then we will naturally have felt that the
University of Sydney made a serious error in trying to
distance itself from the Dalai Lama. The consequences of which
would have been felt long into the future."

Furthermore, if the University of Sydney wants to sit proudly
alongside the world's best - then as the author says -
" it had better take heed of this lesson."

Lexi,

You have taken that from someone's blog. Maybe it supports your view but it is all rhetoric.

Leave the university alone. Its administration is right to insist on due process and to ensure the right protocols are followed. After all it is the university administration that is held responsible if anything goes pearshaped.

Nothing to see here.

Dear onthebeach,

The article was not taken from someone's blog.
However, I can see that it is pointless
to continue in this discussion with someone who
tells me that,
"there's nothing to see here."

I should have gotten the message the first time
that was said.

Silly me.

cont'd ...

BTW: -

If, as you state several times,
"There's nothing to see here,"
why then are you persistenly
defending the University of Sydney
so profusely and repeatedly? And why do you
keep coming back for more?
Finally telling me to "leave the University alone."

The logical conclusion is that some vested interest
is paying you to do this.

Because your posts smack of more then hubris,
ignorance, or simply stirring

Lexi,

That long diatribe you said you 'received in the post' (as if receiving anything in the post is any recommendation) was apparently cobbled together by a Simon Bradshaw.

You give no reason why he should be taken as a more authoritative source that the university administration.

The university administration has said that the Dalai Lama's organisation did not seek approval before. Apparently they have now done so and the visit was duly approved.

The feckless interfering, headline-hunting Greens should stay out of internal university politics. It is an election year and the Greens are doining their usual stirring to attrect the serially upset and the easily led.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5f2RMc4e5s

Dear onthebeach,

A few corrections:

I did not say that I received the article in the post.

The article was indeed written by Dr Simon Bradshaw,
who doesn't "cobble" anything together. He is sought
after, and writes Opinion pieces and articles for major
media outlets both here in Australia (such as The Sydney
Morning Herald, to name just one) and overseas. Dr
Bradshaw knows what he is talking about. He's a Director
of the Australia Tibet Council and a Member of the
Steering Committee of the International Tibet Network.

Regardless of Sydney University's attempts to distance
itself from the Dalai Lama and the lame excuses it gave
(contrary to all the facts as reported by the ABC and other
media outlets) the only reason the university has now
changed its mind is due to the huge public outcry that
followed the university's decision to cancel the Dalai
Lama's talk.

In under a week, 15,000 individuals signed a
petition urging the University to preserve its integrity
by reversing its decision to distance itself from the
Dalai Lama - which the university was forced to finally do
in keeping with its own "Charter of Academic Freedom,"
and the Enterprise Agreement it had signed earlier.

The world's leading universities from Harvard, MIT, Oxford,
and Cambridge, have all welcomed the Dalai Lama on their
campuses. It's a shame that Sydney University had to be
forced to do the same.

I guess its all a question of one's values and beliefs.
And those as we all know are subjective - and are based on
personal values and experiences. They are shaped by what our
past experience has prepared us to see and by what we
consciously or unconsciously want to see.

As Dr Bradshaw stated,

"Ultimately if one believes in the values of education,
unimpeded enquiry, honesty and integrity, then we will
naturally have felt that Sydney University made a
serious error in trying to distance itself from the
Dalai Lama..."

Sydney University has started to heed this lesson -
even though it is regrettable that the right decision was
not made at the outset.

I am also opposed to the 'hire a mob' mentality that relies on online petitions to embarrass.

In a recent expose of an online petition, it was found that such notables as Donald Duck were signatories.

Dear onthebeach,

See, I suspected all along that you've got a
sense of humour. Thanks for giving me the best
laugh I've had in ages. Still it has also
occurred to me that someone whose moniker is
"onthebeach," shouldn't really be knocking
a "Duck."

Anyway, this discussion has now well and truly run its
course for me. I'm not going to play anymore.
Talk to yourself. At least you'll find someone who
has the wisdom to see things your way.

See ya.

Lexi,

"If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself.

If you want to stop hurting yourself, you must get rid of your anger and become loving instead. When you hate others, you yourself become unhappy. But when you love others, everyone is happy."

These are the wise words of the Buddha.

Travel well.

Lexi,

Thanks for an entertaining thread.

I see you are following the wise words of His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama, in your dealings with the adversarial onthebeach.

"Patient forbearance is the quality which enables us to prevent negative thoughts and emotions from taking hold of us. It safeguards our peace of mind in the face of adversity."

Well done....

I forgive you too, Poirot. LOL

Dear Poirot,

Thank You for your positivity.
It has been an entertaining discussion
which I have enjoyed tremendously.

What a beautiful and appropriate way to end this
discussion. As the philosopher Schopenhauer once
wrote:

Every truth passes through three stages before it
is recognised. In the first, it is ridiculed.
In the second, it is opposed. In the third, it is
regarded as self evident."

Many still linger between ridicule and opposition, but
millions of people throughout the world are beginning
to regard as self-evident principles of ancient
spiritual wisdom.

See you on another thread.