Chinese Dissidents Still Have Questions to Answer

To the editors:

As the unidentified audience member in Erica Levy's article "Dissident Speaks at KSG" (News, May 5), I have a different view of the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident.

One of the panelists, Wang Dan, said that the student protestors were trying to better the country, and the government was more radical because it responded with violence.

But although more than 10,000 protestors amassed outside the party headquarters in Beijing in a recent demonstration, the government resolved the problem peacefully. Why? Because these people practiced restraint, and the government was eager to find a resolution. There are hard-liners in the government, but there are also more open-minded party leaders that were instrumental to this resolution.

Instead, by urging students and workers to persist in a hunger strike and by preventing the government from welcoming Soviet leader Gorbachev on Tiananmen Square, the leaders of the protest humiliated and alienated Chinese leaders. The movement turned a paternalistic government into an authoritarian regime.

Ironically, the pro-democracy protest succeeded in turning the people against the government and the government against the people. Was the escalation of tension between the government and the people a tactical mistake? If so, should the student movement accept part of the responsibility for the tragic outcome?

Wang Dan absolves the movement from such responsibility by saying the motivations of the student protestors made their actions patriotic. I honor his patriotic motivations, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Could his good intentions atone for the lives of soldiers assaulted, murdered and burned on the streets by mobs? Could Wang's motivations alone compensate for the downfall of government moderates after June 4, and heal the trauma in the minds left by the incident? Furthermore, did Wang's idealism represent the ambitions of students who were dying from the hunger strike or colleagues who dined with Western reporters and later abandoned the cause to enter into profitable businesses in the West?

These are some questions the leaders of the pro-democracy movement must answer honestly.

Li Chen '01

May 6, 1999

Holocaust Reading Necessary

To the editors:

On behalf of Hillel and the campus Jewish community, I would like to respond to your 6 editorial "Voices Unheard," (Editorial, May 6).

For nearly a decade, Hillel has been commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day by joining Jewish communities around the world in publicly reading aloud the names of individual Holocaust victims. While we agree reciting the names of endangered species and stories of domestic violence so shortly after memorializing the six million Jewish martyrs of World War II in many ways cheapens all three events, this does not necessarily detract from the positive impact on the campus community.

You claim that the memorials become "indiscernible rhetoric" and simply fade into the background when hurried students quickly pass through the Yard. In fact, each year many people stop by our Holocaust display to read the informational material, light a memorial candle or simply listen in silent reverence as the names are read. Even for those who don't stop, the sound of the individuals' names injects a sobering reminder of a tragedy which may otherwise have been forgotten. This kind of public display is incredibly important, particularly as the number of living Holocaust survivors is decreasing and the number of Holocaust deniers is increasing.

The number six million is difficult to fathom, and thus it is nearly impossible for people to appreciate the true magnitude of this tragedy. But to hear the names of each innocent victim, as well as the long sections of people with the same last name--presumably from the same family--actualizes the Holocaust for many listeners.

You advise that in lieu of public readings we might hold smaller lectures and student discussions. While these events are important, they serve a purpose different from that of the public readings. Our annual memorial service on the night preceding Holocaust Remembrance Day allows attendees to express their emotions in a warm, intimate setting. The name reading the following day is meant to bring together the entire campus community for eight hours of consciousness, emotional catharsis and solemn remembrance. The Holocaust name reading is one of few campus events for which students, faculty, administrators and community members join together with a common purpose--a purpose which could not and should not be served on a smaller scale.

Michael A. Kay '01

May 10, 1999

The writer is chair of the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel.

Harvard Takes Financial Aid

To the editors:

I am infuriated that Harvard plans to cut its own contribution to financial aid to students in the wake of Congress's decision to increase grant money to students. Just as it has done with the tax code, Harvard is using the system to promote itself, rather than students, for whom government money was intended. It is enraging that taxpayer money, intended to be used as financial aid, will go into Harvard's overstuffed belly.

If Harvard wanted the best for its students, it would offer more financial aid now, rather than suck up the cut-backs. Students still pay far too much and far more than they can afford. I cannot believe how excruciatingly disingenuous Harvard is when it says that its students' "demonstrated needs" are met and that they need give no further money to financial aid--the administration forgets to mention that at the same time, it will soak up the extra money itself!

I will never give one dime more than I owe to this University. Many of my friends say they'll donate to Harvard but specify that it go to financial aid. But isn't it clear that Harvard would just rearrange funds so the money will go to feed the Harvard machine?

Joe Subotnik '00

May 7, 1999