I'm back, so lets catch up on stuff. First off is the final tally of the embarassing SARS backtrack. The South China Morning Post has a good piece on a high-level delegation that UC sent to repair ties with Hong Kong. Registration required, so I'll just post the summary paragraph.

Within two weeks of announcing that students from Sars-affected regions could not attend its summer programme due to start next week, a high-level delegation headed by vice-chancellor Professor Donald McQuade, was in Hong Kong, to say sorry. The businesslike team also turned a credibility crisis because of a global rebuke into an opportunity. Furthering academic links became a natural part of the Hong Kong agenda. With so few leaders from overseas universities daring to set foot here, McQuade was assured of a warm reception. "What was at stake was our academic integrity," said McQuade, explaining why the team so quickly flew across the Pacific for the four-day visit. Berkeley has an image of being a particularly liberal institution. It was sorely stung by suggestions that it could now be taking the lead in discriminating against young Asians. "Forty four per cent of our students have an Asian heritage," McQuade said. There was no question of Chinese-looking people being unwelcome on campus as an outcome of Sars. Berkeley was criticised by the World Health Organisation, the Hong Kong government, the media, and even its own alumni for turning the students away. It quickly backtracked, discovering previously unavailable accommodation on campus to isolate any students who developed Sars-like symptoms, allowing it to take up to 80 students from Sars countries for the summer programme. "To meet with students who were enrolled and will come to Berkeley at the beginning of next week was our highest purpose, to express our regrets for any misunderstanding and confusion caused as a result of the announcement," said McQuade of the reason for the visit. He also met with alumni, but denied that the possible impact of the image crisis on fund-raising was a motive: "It was not a question of finances but what everyone understood to be the integrity of Berkeley's academic mission and identity," he said. He insists that all Berkeley had been doing was following the Centres for Disease Control's guidelines, but that it had unfortunately been the first to do so because its summer programme started before those at other universities. Its initial decision was based on the fact that it did not have suitable accommodation for isolation: which involved students having their own rooms, separate ventilation and separate bathrooms. It is now setting aside about 20 rooms in a conference centre of this.

Meanwhile, an op-ed in the New York Times criticized the ban as racist.

The university's actions have had particular force for many Asians, in large measure because California has historically been home to the oldest and most virulent strains of anti-Chinese sentiment. As long as the university maintains criteria for exclusion based on nationality, not sound medical diagnosis, it will continue to face charges of anti-Asian prejudice. After all, SARS is a global disease. A blanket ban on Asians isn't protection against the virus — it is simply discrimination under a different name.

Not a very good op-ed. It depends on seeing the reaction against fake 'Asian' diseases in old California as the same thing as a reaction against a real disease centered in Asia. SARS is not a global disease; obviously so if there aren't any cases of it in California. It's in Asia, and hopefully, it won't spread. It also associates some good points that made Berdahl reverse himself-- this isn't a good way of stopping the disease, it's not based on medical theory, etc-- with the more head-scratching idea that what Chancellor Berdahl really fears is them slanty-eyed foreigners what are building the Transcontinental railroad. I find it much more likely he fears people with a deadly and communicable disease.

It was quickly followed up by several letters pointing out that Universities in China have much stricter restrictions on movement, and no one criticizes them as racist.

In the last month, there have been no reported cases of SARS in Fujian Province. Yet Xiamen University, where I am a Fulbright lecturer, has adopted draconian rules for all university members who leave the city.

Students and faculty members alike are forbidden to leave Xiamen without permission of the university's anti-SARS committee. They may re-enter campus only after a medical examination and a 10-day quarantine, regardless of their health.

This week we were told that the quarantine facility is full. Anyone who leaves will not be allowed to return until further notice. This means that my Chinese students can't interview for jobs, apply for visas to visit the United States or even visit their families. There is also discussion of canceling the summer holiday and requiring students to remain on campus.

The history of anti-Chinese racism in the United States is sad, but the SARS threat is real. Berkeley may have initially overreacted, but to equate its actions with racial discrimination does not help make appropriate and reasonable policies.
Gerald N. Rosenberg
Xiamen, China, May 21, 2003

Email This Post!