The column is particularly critical of the non-response to the Think Secret case by the Harvard Nieman Foundation, which trains mid-career journalists in their craft. A few weeks ago, the Nieman Foundation was shamed into de-inviting a group of officials from the People's Republic of China who wanted some pointers on how to handle the hordes of nosy Western journalists expected for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. A lot of Nieman alums rightly pointed out that the Foundation's mission was related to training journalists to be better at what they do, not getting involved in public relations (what many in journalism business refer to, along with ad sales, as the "dark side").
Beam asks:
Maybe it's time for the Niemans to stop playing footsie with the butchers of Beijing and start standing up to the control freaks of Cupertino.
This column, and Nieman's Think Secret and Beijing responses, interest me on several levels. I am a journalist, a Mac enthusiast, and a Harvard student researching Chinese history and Chinese media. Academia has a role to educate, as well as research the many "whys" of our existence. In the social sciences, this often means asking hard questions or raising uncomfortable hypotheses. Yet when it comes to questioning corporate or governmental interests, the head of the Nieman Foundation (and many other Harvard academic departments) are more likely to take a friendly, non-confrontational approach when dealing with governments and corporations. Instead of organizing panels on human rights or corporate misconduct, certain Harvard departments are more likely to invite CEOs and high-ranking officials to receptions, fundraisers, and friendly pseudo-academic programs like the Nieman event described above.
There are exceptions, of course. KSG holds regular Q&A sessions with well-known politicians and government officials from around the world, and they often have to answer uncomfortable or revealing questions from the crowd.
But when it comes to China, the KSG Q&A sessions are the exception. Many Harvard departments -- and administrators -- maintain a cozy, non-confrontational relationship with Chinese officials, as evidenced by the Nieman invitation, which was co-sponsored by the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research, and the Harvard University Asia Center. In my opinion, this is the result of several factors:
1) The nature of the administration that runs Harvard and some of Harvard's professional schools. Larry Summers is a former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and is closely aligned with the Democratic Party. Bill Kirby (FAS Dean) is a Chinese history professor. Both Summers and Kirby, as well as other Harvard deans, frequently host visits by PRC leaders, senior ministers, and professors. Hosting a human rights conference critical of Chinese treatment of dissidents, journalists, Tibetans, etc. would jeopardize that level of contact, and potentially sour Harvard's image in that country, not to mention among current Harvard students who are sensitive to "Western" criticism of China.
2) Academics engaged in China studies who organize or participate in forums overtly critical of human rights practices risk losing access to sources in China, or not being invited back by otherwise friendly colleagues in China. This could have huge implications for one's research and career.
I would be curious to know what other people think of this issue. It would also be interesting to get some feedback about what happened to China scholars at Cornell, following Cornell's invitation to former Taiwanese President and "splittist" Lee Teng-hui in 1995. Did this have a chilling effect?
No comments:
Post a Comment