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.