Today's third annual Edward R. Murrow Symposium will bring renowned journalist and former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw to campus to lead a diversely talented group of media professionals in a critical discussion entitled, "Noise vs. News: The State of Political Coverage."
The symposium upholds the longstanding Tufts tradition of inviting speakers to the Hill to help students gain a broader and deeper understanding of complicated, often controversial subjects. With lightning rods of debate like Ann Coulter, Salman Rushdie, Daniel Pipes and Dinesh D'Souza - to name a few - having visited campus in just the past couple of years, Jumbos might have become habituated to the notion that a free exchange of ideas and open dialogue provide students with a well-rounded education that will better equip them to deal with the world's problems once they leave the ivory tower.
However, Tufts students might be surprised to learn that exposure to a variety of viewpoints is a privilege that their counterparts at other schools don't necessarily enjoy.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported Friday that the University of Washington collected inquiries ahead of time from students who wished to engage in a question-and-answer session with the Dalai Lama when the Tibetan spiritual leader spoke at their university this past Saturday. The decision to switch from the more traditional open-mic question-and-answer format was driven by the university's desire to nip in the bud any students' attempts to raise inquiries related to Tibetan independence and Chinese suppression of Tibetan nationalist activity. University of Washington officials told the Chronicle of Higher Education that their actions did not constitute censorship; rather, they contend that they wished to simply ensure that questioners would stick to the Dalai Lama's pre-selected discussion topic, which is also the theme of his five-day visit to the Seattle area, "the nurturing of compassion."
The Daily, however, cannot interpret the University of Washington's actions as anything but censorship in its purest, most damaging and most undemocratic form. With the start of the 2008 Beijing Olympics drawing nearer, China has become the focus of intense scrutiny from organizations and politicians all over the world; protests against the emerging world power and allegations of gross human rights violations make headlines every day. So how can the University of Washington in good conscience prohibit its students from exploring this highly salient issue when they have the rare opportunity to pick the brain of a gentleman who holds a prominent position at the heart of the controversy?
The University of Washington's mission statement declares in no uncertain terms that "the primary mission of the University of Washington is the preservation, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge," yet the university's decision to edit its students' contributions to the question-and-answer session flies in the face of the democratic approach to education for which it claims to stand. When considered in light of Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's disparaging introductory remarks about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when the Iranian president visited New York last semester, one can't help but fear that American institutions of higher education are failing to teach their students the importance of tolerance and academic inquisition.
Instead, the University of Washington taught its students this week to sweep uncomfortable topics under the rug, to avoid difficult conversations and instead focus on more pleasant, palatable subjects.
Surely, that is not the message you want to send to the leaders of tomorrow; it's inconceivable that we will ever be able to resolve tensions with China, solve our problems in the Middle East, ameliorate the conflicts in Northern Africa or even save our own tanking economy if we teach such a cowardly approach to conflict resolution.
But perhaps the most offensive component of the University of Washington's decision was the fact that the message they sent contradicted the one they were trying to protect. According to the Seattle Times, the Dalai Lama spoke chiefly about the benefit of learning to feel compassion for others; he concluded his talk by specifically underlining the need to empathize with those who hold viewpoints that oppose one's own. Such wisdom could have provided the basis for a lively, nuanced discussion of the Tibet-China conflict, but due to university officials' own lack of tolerance for controversial opinions, this critical dialogue never took place.
