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.