Former President George Herbert Walker Bush will be delivering this year's Issam Fares Lecture. According to the Lecture Series' homepage, the speech is designed "to promote greater understanding in America on various subjects related to Lebanon and the Middle East." However, such a goal can not be accomplished in the format and setting that the Lecture Series offers.
The format for the speech precludes democratic debate and excludes any controversial exchanges of ideas. The evening's tone will be set by accolades from the President for the Lecture Series in general and Issam Fares in particular (Fares is a large donor to the University). This will be followed by a short speech by Issam Fares who will then warmly greet the former President (they happen to be close friends). In turn, Bush will speak on the Middle East. Afterwards, a limited number of pre-screened questions will be asked through a moderator (most likely Bacow). Then, when time is up, there will be photo opportunities and the student body will file out of the gym. This format is far from the vibrant, challenging, and engaging settings that accompany true discourse.
By preventing the student body from asking candid, open and pointed questions, the administration has turned its back on intellectualism and democracy. Without a free and fair exchange of ideas how can a "greater understanding" be reached? The history of this lecture series shows us the real reason for such a procedure is actually to silence dissent. Two years ago Doug Hansen, a Tufts University student, asked that year's Issam Fares lecturer Colin Powell a pointed question on Iraqi sanctions. Since that question, the Administration has enacted a policy whereby all future questions are screened. The lack of pointed questions at last year's lecture shows just how effective the screening of questions can be. The result is an environment where the speaker's ideas go unchallenged.
It is important to recognize the Administration's argument on this issue. They claim that the screening process prevents frivolous questions from being asked and is more fair and practical than allowing the first person to a microphone out of the 1800 or so audience members to ask his or her question. If this is truly the Administration's desire, then I believe that there are more democratic ways to go about achieving the same end. First of all, if this is to be an opportunity for learning we must be able to ask questions freely and openly. Secondly, if questions must be screened then the process should be a transparent one and those selecting the questions should represent a wide range of political ideologies. This can be accomplished quite easily by inviting one representative from each student publication to sit on a panel that will choose the questions democratically. They would be charged with providing the moderator with a variety of well-thought out questions from a full spectrum of political ideologies. Thirdly, if the Administration insists upon continuing with this undemocratic and anti-intellectual structure, they should, at the very least, provide the student body with a separate assembly designed to debate the merits of the former President's comments. Without that exchange of ideas, the speech will be simply a symbolic gesture of goodwill on behalf of the administration and the University to George Bush and the Republican Party.
It is important that we not overlook this symbolism. By welcoming George Bush into the Tufts community, especially at this time of heightened debate on an invasion of Iraq, without encouraging dissent, discussion, debate, or even pointed questions, the University appears to be endorsing Bush's political agenda and the war on Iraq. The Administration must find a way around this seeming endorsement of an extremely controversial foreign policy decision. By opening up the lecture space to dissent and discussion this unfortunate situation can be averted. Similar to the Democrat's rebuttal at this year's State of the Union address, the Administration could offer a spot at the podium for a progressive thinker who could put forth arguments different from those Bush will be giving. This would clearly fit within the frameworks of intellectualism and democracy that we as a University community claim to uphold.
On the other hand, if, as the lecture series claims, the goal of this speech is to "promote greater understanding" then George Bush was a poor choice for the speaker. He will not be saying anything new when he visits the Gantcher center and without new information understanding cannot grow. While the speech may be slightly different than the one he presented here in 1994, it will not differ from the party line that his son is touting, nor will it be distinct from the message on the Middle East he delivered on CNN a week ago. Not only will he not say anything new, but he cannot say anything new. His views on the subject are those expressed every day on CNN. They are the views that come out of the mouths of Condelleza Rice and Colin Powell. They are the views of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Every single Tufts student is already aware of the stance George Bush has taken on the Middle East. As a result, the content of his speech is of no real use. It is simply a new showcase for these old views.
Critics of this point believe that regardless of the content of the speech, the event itself will be memorable. They believe that having someone of George Bush's stature on campus has some sort of inherent worth to an intellectual community. To these critics there are three logical responses. First of all, we must ask the question, "What has led to Bush's invitation?" Are our priorities such that we blindly reward power, especially power attained not by hard work or intellectualism, but power attained through the luck of birth? (It is Bush's father, Prescott Bush, who made family money by supplying Hitler with raw materials and credit until his businesses were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942.). Are we such fans of authority that instead of inviting an intellectual or a scholar on the Middle East we spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring in a talking head with nothing new to say simply because he once sat in this country's throne room? We must question our fascination with power.
Secondly, if our only intent is to create a memorable event at Tufts, then there are other speakers who are famous for reasons besides political clout that could headline events that might inherently benefit the Tufts community. Last year's lecture by Desmond Tutu comes to mind. While his politics are different than those of George Bush, it is the difference in their personas that are most important to this argument. Most of us had heard of Desmond Tutu before his speech, however, few of us had heard him speak or understood his politics. As a result, the Tutu lecture provided an opportunity for learning and discussion (He accepted open and uncensored questions). The opposite is true of George Bush, a former President and political pundit who has been actively in the public eye for the last two decades. Also, by inviting Tutu we were honoring, not his position of political power, but rather his prowess as a thinker. By inviting Bush we are falling into a trap of celebrity worship and deification of authority figures.
Thirdly, it is important to realize that Bush is famous for being President of the United States. By inviting him to the University and providing him with an open and unchallenged space the University is in effect endorsing his actions as President, as well as the upcoming actions of his son (which Bush has repeatedly and openly supported). We must decide as a community what is more important -- our support of democracy and intellectualism or our desire to be in close proximity with someone famous.
We must decide exactly how valuable the Fares Lecture Series is to Tufts University. If we are not being challenged by new ideas is it worth the tens of thousands of dollars we spend to finance these speeches? There are countless other ways to promote understanding of the Middle East. In order to do so; however, we are going to have to move beyond the power obsession and anti-intellectualism inherent in the Fares Lecture and create free and open spaces where these topics can be discussed and debated in a vibrant and lively setting. After Bush's speech, when we all head home wondering why he didn't say anything of importance, an opportunity will have been lost. We must find a way to create a democratic setting at Bush's lecture. The Gantcher center should be home to debate rather that propaganda and symbolism.
Adam Carlis is a senior majoring in Peace and Justice Studies.
More from The Tufts Daily