Despite chalkings outside Fletcher, rumors of protest, and the presence of a metal detector and bag check, Saturday evening's EPIIC panel, "Global Governance and the Multinational Corporation," progressed unmarked by the high level of conflict anticipated. The event, a discussion of corporate responsibility, should be regarded as a success and a model for further discussion on campus.
We commend the Institute for Global Leadership for bringing Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, to the hill. A controversial but relevant figure due to his company's past, Liveris' willingness to engage in conversation about the adverse effects of industry on the environment is heartening.
Dow Chemical, current owner of chemical company Union Carbide of India, inherited the company's responsibility for 1984 Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal. Despite court settlements made by Union Carbide to the Indian government to address the damage, the effects of Bhopal, among the world's worst industrial accidents, resonate today.
Many were unwilling to let Dow Chemical forget its obligations and the responsibilities of its subsidiary, as indicated by the lengthy question and answer session. Despite their commitment to addressing the tragedy, Tufts students and other members of the Tufts community made themselves seen and heard in a respectful manner.
While some might see the presence of a corporate CEO or other influential figure as a chance to grandstand or "pile on" a laundry list of complaints, the EPIIC panel limited the discussion to the topic at hand and clearly focused on educating the audience instead of attempting to score cheap rhetorical points. Those present respectfully welcomed the opportunity to learn from the corporate representatives rather than to counter them immediately. This dynamic led to a more complete discussion.
The devotion to the issue at hand served both the panelists and the audience who came to hear a discussion about the published subject. Questioners were kept on topic. This is not to say that questioners should restrict themselves or that those at the panel Saturday did; Liveris did not speak about Bhopal during his prepared speech. It was only during the question session that Bhopal was brought forward.
Though emotion clearly played a role in the discussion, as it should in any important issue dealing with human life, passion did not overpower the discussion. This important balance may be difficult to achieve on hot-button issues, but should be the goal of everyone in any discussion to achieve.
Finally, the information and views presented allowed outsiders to form their own opinions. The debate was low on histrionics and allowed for everyone present to leave the discussion with a clearer picture of the issue at hand.
If Tufts values a true give-and-take discussion, education and awareness on contentious topics, all of us should resolve to begin any discussion with fair parameters to achieve that understanding. Saturday's panel succeeded in bringing a healthy discussion to Tufts on the topic of corporate responsibility; the Tufts community should be commended for civilly engaging in discourse to address such an emotional, polemical matter.
