Welcome launch of true dialogue about Navy-funded research

The Star-Bulletin editorial basically ignores any of the protesters' concerns and says "the plans should go forward" for a UARC at UH, which "should not be deterred by unfounded complaints by protesters." But one of their main complaints was the lack of full disclosure and openness by the administration, which the administration has acknowledged and promised now to remedy, so that complaint is well founded on its face. And as for the other complaints, how do we know how well-founded they are or aren't until the University follows through with its commitment for full disclosure and makes public all related documents? Seems what is truly unfounded is this editorial!

The Advertiser, on the other hand, welcomes a greater level of discussion and transparency, and says "the aim should be one of frank and detailed disclosure about the nature of the proposed agreement, about the kind of assurances the Navy has given UH officials on the rights of researchers — all the particulars should come out on the table." However, they seem to think that the protesters should somehow share some of the blame for the lack of information. Hello? We wouldn't have any real information if not for their actions. And it seems almost like they changed authors midway through the editorial, with the latter not bothering to read the former (since this is obviously not the case, it is all the more odd that one author would so quickly contradict what s/he said just a few grafs previously). It opens by saying, "The end of the sit-in at the University of Hawai'i's Bachman Hall signals the welcome launch of true dialogue about Navy-funded research, an openness that should have existed when the earliest discussions began two years ago" (emphasis added). But then at the end calls the sit-in a "polarizing tactic" that hasn't "contributed much to the discourse." Soooo.... the result of this "polarizing tactic" is the "welcome launch of true dialogue," and though it hasn't contributed much to the discourse, because of it we now have "openness that should have existed" from the beginning. Huh?

Doug at Poinography has also posted some thoughts on these editorials (and some letters to the editor), and says re the Advertiser (emphasis his):

...until this week, who really controlled the terms of the debate? To blame the protesters for their tactics and at the same time speak in favor of having a “real conversation” obscures the fact that without those “angry and polarizing” tactics from the protesters there would not have been an opportunity for that conversation. The few public fora were farcical sideshows because the process was insufficiently open, not because the protesters were unwilling to fully express their concerns.

Posted: Fri - May 6, 2005 at 07:24 PM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1769281028"); >

Welcome launch of true dialogue about Navy-funded research

> >