Beijing had hoped that the 2008 Summer Olympics would draw worldwide attention to China’s sweltering economy and ambitious development projects. Now, less than three months removed from its grand prize, the nation hosting the world’s largest population faces a different sort of scrutiny from its international counterparts.

On March 10^th, the 49^th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against Communist Chinese rule, protests broke out in several ethnic Tibetan areas, including cities in Sichuan and Qinghai provinces as well as the Tibet Autonomous Region. Initially, the movements were peaceful demonstrations for the release of detained monks, but as political demands surfaced, they quickly escalated into destructive riots. Demonstrators attacked non-Tibetan interests, including shops, businesses, and embassies, prompting swift response by Chinese police. In the ensuing conflicts, many civilian lives were lost on both sides.

Over the next few weeks, the protests increased pace internationally. Tibetans in Austria, Germany, and France demonstrated at their Chinese Embassies, and by March 24^th, Western activists joined into the fray. With the Olympic torch relay in full swing, many protestors targeted their activities at the torch processions and receptions to gain international exposure and send China a symbolic message. In early April, both London and Paris experienced unrest as thousands shouting “Free Tibet” slogans descended upon the ceremonies.

On April 9^th, the day the torch was scheduled to pass through San Francisco, members of the Duke Human Rights Coalition arranged their own protest on the steps of the Duke University Chapel. The ensuing counter-protest by Chinese students would make international headlines and highlight the tensions and differences between America and China—not only the countries themselves but also their education systems, people’s beliefs, and even their perceptions of their own nations.

I will investigate the events that occurred at Duke University from early April until present as a case study of the overall anti-Olympics movement and the Chinese backlash. I believe that focusing on this case rather than the China-Tibet issue as a whole, where information is much more limited, will shed insights into the perspectives of all the actors involved. Indeed, one can look at the case from many disciplinary views:

1. Psychology: mob mentality, perception of nation and state
2. Sociology: role of social networks, protests as a social movement
3. Policy and Media: role of media, role of government
4. Ethics: ethics of national policies, ethics of media, ethics of groups or individuals

As an academic journal affiliated with a major university, we hold academic integrity and openness above all else in our analysis, both in our presentation of facts and evaluation of the case itself.

Summary of Events

In the days leading to April 9^th, many Duke students received invitations through Facebook.com to attend the “Tibet Flag Relay and Candlelight Vigil.” Hosted by the Duke Human Rights Coalition, the rally was to “remember the victims of China’s violent occupation and oppression of the Tibetan people” and to “protest against China’s genocide Olympics.” The rally was to start on Duke’s East Campus at 6:30PM and conclude with a vigil at the University Chapel on West Campus. Few students had actually expressed interest in joining the protests; the Facebook event only had 23 confirmed guests out of over 500 invitees.

However, the invitations were brought to the attention of many Chinese students at Duke, most notably the leaders of the Duke Chinese Scholars and Students Association (DCSSA). Responding to what they believed was a spiteful attack on China grounded on historical misinterpretations, they quickly organized a counter-protest. On April 9^th, several hundred Chinese students showed up on East Campus waving Chinese flags and carrying signs expressing their belief that Tibet is part of China. Hailing from the University of North Carolina and North Carolina State University as well as Duke, they followed the human rights protesters to the Duke Chapel, where the two groups squared off in a heated verbal battle.

From this point on, accounts differ as to what occurred on the Chapel quad that evening. The Chinese protestors sang the Chinese national anthem, decried Western media bias, and chanted their slogan “One world, one dream, one China,” but whether they coerced the human rights activists to the Chapel steps or not depends on the witness’ interpretation. It is clear, however, that during this standoff Duke freshman Grace Wang, an international student from China, painted the words “Free Tibet” on vigil leader Adam Weiss’ back. Grace then proceeded to converse with groups of Chinese students, many of whom were upset by her actions and denounced her as a “traitor.”

Grace and the human rights activists finally left the scene under police escort, although conflict evidently carried over to internet forums and e-mail lists, including DCSSA’s own listserv. Within hours after the protest, angry anonymous attacks directed at Grace Wang surfaced on these mediums, and they included her personal contact information and Chinese identification number as well as her parents’ contact information. Indeed, these attacks only escalated as this information spread to international forums.

Although she initially kept her identity a secret, Grace revealed herself to the Duke community on April 16^th through The Chronicle, Duke’s student-run newspaper. A feature article reported that Grace’s home in China had been vandalized and that both her and her parents had received many anonymous threats. Grace herself blamed the DCSSA for revealing her information, and several student groups at Duke followed in calling for the DCSSA’s disbandment. The Duke Student Government and others refused to act during the Spring 2008 school year, however, citing insufficient evidence of malicious activity by the group itself.

In the days following this revelation, Duke students and faculty alike joined in condemning the threats against Grace Wang. Grace’s story made national headlines, and she even authored an editorial on the Washington Post with the help of her media advisor, Duke alumnus Scott Savitt. In this editorial, Grace is portrayed as a mediator attempting to resolve the conflict between the two parties on April 9^th. She asserts that she does not advocate Tibetan independence and explains her writing the words “Free Tibet” by claiming that Adam Weiss agreed to engage in dialogue with the Chinese student group only if she had done so. Scott Savitt followed up with an editorial in The Chronicle likening the threats against Grace to a “witchhunt” manipulated by the Chinese Government.

Through these exposures, Grace Wang has become a symbol of free speech and academic freedom for both Duke students and the American public alike. Of course, the threats and vandalism committed against her should be condemned as violations of her freedom. However, given the current level of knowledge about the actors involved, it is dangerous to make public condemnations, justified as they may be. Thus, the remainder of this article is dedicated to understanding the motivations and intents of the actors involved in this case: the human rights activists, Chinese students, and the media.

Human Rights Activists

Seeking to raise on-campus awareness about various injustices around the world, the human rights activists at Duke rode the momentum of worldwide protests against the Beijing Olympics. Consisting mainly of undergraduate students studying a wide range of majors, their goal is increased human rights worldwide, and they work to achieve this goal through public opinion and government influence in developed countries.

In this particular case, activists have pushed for Tibetan autonomy and a boycott of the Olympics. They believe that Tibetan culture is in danger of being smothered by Chinese policies, and that Tibetan people do not have the same rights to free speech and economic opportunity as the Han Chinese, even in the Tibet Autonomous Region. In response to the recent riot outbreaks in ethnic Tibetan regions, activists have decried China’s “violent repression” of protesting monks and lament the loss of life on the Tibetan side.

Many have raised questions about the activists’ depth of knowledge. In her Washington Post opinion, Grace Wang writes, “The participants on the Tibet side were mostly Americans, who really don’t have a good understanding of how complex the situation is. Truthfully, both sides were being quite closed-minded and refusing to consider the other’s perspective.” Indeed, in the April 9^th event’s Facebook invitation, there is at best an oversimplified account of the region’s history and only vague reference to China’s actual faults at Tibet. A video account of the protest shows the event organizer Adam Weiss adamantly stating that China “invades, attacks, kills, oppresses, bans, suppresses…” without providing concrete examples in the Tibet case; this can be described as an emotional appeal to viewers at best.

Undoubtedly, the activists have partially achieved their goal of raising salience, ironically due in part to the massive reaction by Chinese students. However, in order to translate their demands into policy, they will need to heed their own calls for “academic freedom” – in particular, more attention needs to be placed on academic substance if successful policies are to be implemented.

Chinese Students

Most of the Chinese counter-protestors on April 9^th were graduate students who are in the US for temporary educational measures. In the wake of the threats against Grace Wang, many Chinese students have been unfairly labeled as agents of a vile Communist government. Indeed, those students who anonymously attacked Grace are deserving of condemnation, but it is unfounded and unlikely that they are part of some Chinese government conspiracy.

Rather, the motivating agent behind many Chinese students is a heightened sense of nationalism, comparable to that in European countries during the early 20^th century. It is true that the government instills this nationalism through education, but this is not a phenomenon exclusive to China or even the developing world. As Scott Savitt suggests, this nationalism may be perpetuated by a sense of fighting Guo Chi, or national humiliation. Chinese leadership prior to Mao Zedong is blamed for backing down to Western powers all too often, and the new generation of young Chinese feel that they must speak out for their country in order to gain worldwide legitimacy. Successful Olympic Games, in this sense, are especially important to many Chinese because they would signify national clout and legitimacy. Thus, it makes sense for them to protest an event that calls for boycotting the Olympics.

When Grace Wang painted the words “Free Tibet,” many Chinese called her a traitor. Although some have claimed that the ensuing reaction against Grace violated her free speech and academic freedom, it is important to distinguish between what actually violated her rights and what was legal public outcry. The act of calling Grace a “traitor” did not harm her rights; indeed, it is within the bounds of free expression to criticize a person’s actions. The Chinese students felt that by expressing solidarity with the Tibetan independence movement [whether she actually intended to or not], Grace Wang betrayed China’s sovereignty. Many people may still find the word “traitor” to be harsh, but it is only a product of nationalism and does not in itself break constitutional rights. However, when some students decided to deal with the “traitor” themselves, they violated Grace’s right to free speech by threatening to use physical force and divulging personal information.

Interestingly, Chinese students often use history in order to justify their country’s stance on Tibet. However, their version of history staunchly differs with that of the human rights activists. Historical truth has remained obscure at this point, and thus invoking history during debates often results in contradictory stories and little progress. It is more important, then, to focus on the present. Even the most passionate nationalist must realize that Tibet will be an important policy battleground for China in the upcoming months regardless of their beliefs. The riots and conflicts in Tibet highlight real administrative problems and must be addressed at a national level; they cannot be dismissed with a simple claim to legitimacy. Thus, it is important they seek academic knowledge about the issue as well, and investigate appropriate policy options to help solve the crisis.

Media

There seems to be little evidence of an “anti-China conspiracy” in the latest media coverage of the Tibet issue and the Grace Wang issue, but there is evidence of oversimplification. Certainly, a few sources have completely misrepresented the Chinese students’ intentions. For example, on April 10^th, The Chronicle published an article describing the previous evening’s protests. According to the story, hundreds of upset protestors interrupted a “planned candlelight vigil in support of Tibet.” While the vigil was planned as part of the Human Rights Coalition’s event, the protestors were not upset at the vigil itself, but rather the event’s call to “protest against China’s genocide Olympics.” The article’s wording, on the other hand, seems to suggest that the Chinese students valued human life below their own political gains.

For the most part, Americans do not understand the motivations or outrage of the Chinese students involved. The media has done little to explain the Chinese point of view, instead simplifying them to an angry mob at times. Furthermore, there have been few attempts by Chinese nationals to clarify their position, and those attempts have been terse at best. Thus, it is important to include more perspective in future media reports. Although this type of thorough coverage does not necessarily maximize profits, it is beneficial to mutual understanding.

Conclusion

It is evident that the Chinese vs. human rights conflict at Duke originates from different values on nationalism rather than inherent regard or disregard for “freedom of speech.” Incidents like the threats made against Grace Wang exist, but they do not represent the Chinese protestors as a whole – in fact, the majority of DCSSA members condemn these personal attacks. Although dialogue may be more limited in China, Chinese students here at Duke evidence their respect for free speech when they speak out against what they perceive to be a spiteful attack against their country. Thus, constructive dialogue between the two groups can be achieved if these values are mutually respected and understood. Only then can policy recommendations based on academic evidence be constructed and implemented.

Readers' Comments