Speech isn't a debate

Though there will undoubtedly be protests today voicing displeasure with the selection of former President Bush as this year's Fares lecturer, many of these detractors are missing the point.

An open dialogue with Bush would certainly be desirable, but it cannot be accomplished with the size of the Gantcher audience. Any kind of rigorous "democratic debate" would have to take place with a much smaller group, which would preclude many from attending the event.

The University is not and cannot make political endorsements of any kind. It is simply not political favoritism to expose students to one of most influential individuals in recent US history. But consider if Tufts did cancel the lecture. Could that just as easily be construed as an anti-war stance by the University?

If students feel the annual lecture series often leans too far toward those affiliated with the past two Republican presidencies, then they need to convince the University to re-examine its role both in selecting Fares lectures and hosting the event each year. This is not necessarily a task to be undertaken during the weeks leading up to the lecture, only to be forgotten about until the next controversial speaker is chosen. Those opposed to the Fares series should be continually committed to changing the traditional selection process.

The TCOWI is right, however, to challenge the University's limited question session following the lecture. It is not worth having questions at all if they are pre-screened for political content.

Tufts students should be trusted to ask questions of Bush at the event and give him the respect due a former President, but they should also be able to ask pointed questions about policies under his administration. If there remain those who would use the opportunity to present their own political positions, however, Tufts should simply discontinue the format.

President Bacow is to be commended for providing an opportunity for open debate among students and faculty of Tufts following Bush's lecture as well as indicating that he will not try to stop protests outside Gantcher. Freedom of expression and exchange of ideas is critical to put Bush's lecture in perspective.

Whether you question his motives or not, the truth is that Bush was the main player in the previous skirmish with Saddam Hussein. His lecture may be a one-sided affair, but his experience and insights cannot be discounted. Listening to the speech does not make anyone anti-war, pro-war, Republican, or Democrat. But it may make some of us think a bit more.