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."