Neutered students make most sound
I am utterly disgusted at what happened at University last Wednesday. What should have been one of the highlights of the campaign all but degenerated into the usual round of formulaic chanting and cheering. It was an insult to students and an affront to the most basic things that University stands for, namely critical inquiry and open-minded assessment.
First, two caveats. It seems that this was Labour’s retort to a situation five years ago when a similar debate quickly came to resemble a PN mass meeting at which Alfred Sant turned up uninvited and unwelcome. Last Wednesday’s was Labour’s way of showing that two can play the game, that the PN has no monopoly on sonic warfare.
Second, I spoke to a number of Labourites this week who told me they were delighted to see that the tide had turned (‘inqalbet il-folja’) right in PN heartland. They seemed especially proud of the fact that University students and staff no longer thought it infra dig openly to support Labour, that this was one sure sign of the emancipation of laburisti.
The first is easily dispatched. Surely the ‘Malta tagħna lkoll’ slogan should be a negation of such partisan tomfoolery. Just when I thought I heard Joseph Muscat say that he had no time for the ‘old way’, it all broke down into a standard tit for tat. Not terribly promising or inspiring.
As for the second, I can only speak for myself. I never thought there was anything wrong that University students or academics (or anyone for that matter) should openly support Labour. Some of the most stimulating discussions I’ve had on campus have been with fiercely Labourite students and colleagues. I didn’t need a busload of pom-pom girls and boys to teach me that people will have different political convictions, thank you very much.
I was not myself at the debate. While the first reason concerns me alone, the second is or should be of general interest. I well remember the University debate of five years ago. Two colleagues of mine, both professors in the Faculty of Education, had joined us at the staff cafeteria feeling ‘completely disgusted’ at the way Alfred Sant had been booed and jeered – not so much for anything he had said, which would have been fine, but just because he was the Labour leader.
In any case I doubt I would have managed to get in on Wednesday. Colleagues and students I spoke to said it was practically impossible to make it past the marċ ta’ filgħodu crowd, and that the best seats were anyway occupied by a Labour aristocracy that saw fit to ignore the rules of allocation.
What we have here is a fascinating species indeed, a University debate at which the choice seats are occupied not by students or academics but by party prima donnas and assorted hacks and puppets.
The problem as I see it was not so much the crowding and yelling. I didn’t really expect the auditorium to look and sound like the lobby at the Hotel des Bains, and that’s fine by me. Rather, it was the content I found unacceptable.
I just find it strange that a University debate should be practically indistinguishable from a taħt it-tinda event. Flags and ‘tagħna lkoll’ slogans are quite alright at the latter, simply because the situation calls for a certain ritual.
Rather like the marċ ta’ filgħodu in fact, in the sense that it would be decidedly odd in that situation to spit out the beer and perorate on the finer points of the saint’s theology. Revellers at the marċ will scream and scream – not because they lack brains but simply because the moment calls for it.
I’m not given to fantasies of ascetic students and academics sitting around under the trees debating Hegel or the age of the universe. Still, I suppose it’s not too much to ask that a University debate should reflect the tenets of the institution.
Parroting ‘tagħna lkoll’ and ‘Joseph il-mexxej’ are not among those tenets. A healthy scepticism and a critical approach to politics are. It’s more than acceptable to be a Nationalist or Labourite University student; what isn’t is to be unquestioningly thus, or to behave as such. There should be no place for pedestals of any sort at Tal-Qroqq.
Following last Wednesday’s circus, a number of people asked if the flocks of squawking parrots were the sort of people we are handing over stipend money to. What sort of student body is it that cannot stand up and be a bit irreverent for a short while?
That’s not entirely fair. I’m told that Insite, the student organisation which organised the debate, took pains to make the event a critical and useful one. It was hardly their fault that it ended up hijacked by a gang of mindless boors.
That also means that it’s not quite right to blame University students in general for what happened. I teach and know many students who thrive on scepticism and who would have resisted the idolatry and asked discerning questions – just as they do during lectures for that matter. Only they probably never managed to squeeze their way into the auditorium in the first place. Even if they did, their chances of making any inroad at all were slim.
There are two ways to silence people. The first is to use the threat of or actual violence, the second to get them to parrot exactly what you want them to, when and how you want them to. To quote a well-known Maltese astrophysicist, it’s alright for students to shut politicians up, but not the other way round.
What happened on Wednesday was that our students were shortchanged. The hacks in the headsets managed to make a mockery of and denature University. I have nothing but contempt for them.
21 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Maurice Said
Feb 18th, 17:01
I quite agree, the university should represent a shielded space where party proposals and arguments can be scrutinised in a way that they wouldn't outside of it, and in fact where you would expect this to happen. The fact that the campus is turned into an extension of party territory is what is so disconcerting - it turns it into a non-place by taking away what defines it - critical debate
K Grech
Feb 18th, 16:17
'Labour aristocracy that saw fit to ignore the rules of allocation'
That is much more about Insite, not being able to organize a proper debate, in my opinion even the 2 whom asked questions were so amateurish.
K Grech
Feb 18th, 16:09
'retort to a situation five years ago when <a similar debate>'
@Mark Anthony Falzon, getting back down to earth, if you would compare these 2 events, there is no similarity between them. Seriously they didn't even let Sant start the first 5 words of a sentence. The booing came only after LG boaster with the 'New Fleet of Buses', which every1 knows that it isn't true. Lets be more realistic
Patrick Zammit
Feb 18th, 15:55
MAF says he was disgusted by what happened a few days back.
To be credible, he should give us a link to another opinion piece to show us how equally disgusted he was when a similar incident happened 5 years ago.
If he cannot do so, is it a case of two weights and two measures?
Joseph Borg
Feb 18th, 14:22
I think you're wrong here Mr Falzon. The debate progressed in a civil way without any interruptions and insults. If there were, the PN media would surely report these stupid acts. Instead it pictured party activists and accused them of bringing inside "people from industrial estates".
This is completely false and the PN must admit that the students present did not support Lawrence Gonzi.
A. Vella
Feb 18th, 18:53
A considerable amount of people there had probably never attended secondary school let alone be described as university students.
Your impression is completely false.
Having said that, the event was open to everyone, so in the future should be reserved for students and lecturers.
Jean-Michel Azzopardi
Feb 18th, 13:19
well said
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Feb 18th, 11:29
"a number of people asked if the flocks of squawking parrots were the sort of people we are handing over stipend money to" -blame the PN for this which has been dishing ot money like there is no tomorrow. They have been trying to 'buy' students' votes for years.
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Feb 18th, 11:27
Alfred Sant did not turn up uninvited - he was invited to speak by the organisers - who obviously intended to humiliate him.
Mr ALBERT LEONE GANADO
Feb 18th, 11:02
I fully agree with you that the event in what should be an intellectual centre of intelligent debate and political dialectic degenerated to scenes worthy of a keen soccer derby where supporters slang it out.It was also the case that there were the ultras. However to say the debate was hijacked is debatable given our experience with graduation day tomfoolery at a level of a morning marc tal-banda
Carmel J. Caruana
Feb 18th, 05:54
Dear Dr Falzon, I too look forward to a time of honest intellectual debate at University, however it will only happen when more lecturers are good role models for their students by maintaining objectivity in their thinking. This will only happen if academics do not involve themselves in party politics - but that species is practically extinct.
Carmel J. Caruana
Feb 18th, 05:44
Dr Falzon you said 'Last Wednesday’s debate was Labour’s way of showing that two can play that game'. I dont see it that way at all. The truth is Labour at last has learned to defend itself from the PN's mean and dirty political machine. I can assure you if Labour hadnt defended Dr Muscat, it would have been a repeat of 5 years ago. And what would you be saying? - probably remained silent.
Antoine Vella
Feb 17th, 23:04
Mark, I don't know if you were present at the 2008 debate. It was nothing like this one. In 2008 95% of the audience were genuine students and their feedback was spontaneous. Labour is not playing the same game at all - this was a regimented rabble (the contradiction is only apparent) that was deployed by Labour.
If anything, it showed that Muscat did not feel at ease and needed propping up.
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Feb 18th, 11:32
Mhux hekk - you would be happy to see Musct left inaudible by the PN rabble. In 2008 the organisers pretended to be fair by inviting Sant and then made sure he was not heard - so much for democracy. This time Muscat played the PN game - and beat the **** out of them. Too bad, Antoine.
N. Aquilina
Feb 18th, 11:35
Antoine, do not try to be whiter than white! We all know that SDM memebers were asking students days before to attend the debate so that they could boo dr. Muscat!
Franco Farrugia
Feb 18th, 11:55
If that is indeed the case ('In 2008 95% of the audience were genuine students and their feedback was spontaneous'), then it's all the more serious! Please, let's not think that it was as you said, because believe me, in 2008, there was nothing to be proud about. So, let's just hope that all those who were 'listening' to Dr Sant (not) were not university students.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 18th, 12:01
By the way, I also remember that in 2008 even the PN leader 'needed propping up' from at least one particular blogger who had no business to be at that debate, and her son! Need more info to rekindle your memory?
Paul Caruana
Feb 17th, 20:53
Our university: a centre for enlightened and critical debate.....not.
Next up, "il-partit ta' l'ajkla", when everybody will be havin' a good time!
Peter Paul Sacco
Feb 17th, 20:14
Weren't you disgusted 5 years ago when the students booed Dr Sant?
Luke Lanzon
Feb 17th, 22:25
If you read properly he clearly says so......
Franco Farrugia
Feb 18th, 11:54
Peter Paul Sacco, I think that Dr Falzon's missive is for like-minded and like-intelligent people. Not for people like you.
Please choose the reason of your report below: