Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Inside Job: Beijing's New Allies in Its War on Tibet
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Terpstra
Jun 1, 2013, 2:34:34 PM6/1/13
to
Inside Job: Beijing's New Allies in Its War on Tibet
Posted: 05/30/2013 5:00 pm
When the University of Sydney canceled a scheduled talk by the Dalai Lama it revealed the threat that the Chinese state's
growing influence on Western campuses poses to academic freedom and highlighted Beijing's behind-the-scenes campaign to
undermine the Dalai Lama's legacy. What happened next served to remind Tibetans and supporters of the importance of
making these battles public and fighting them using the power of the grassroots.
What happened in Sydney?
The controversy that played out at the University of Sydney last month is nothing new. For years, the Chinese government has
protested any institution that dared to provide a platform for the Tibetan cause, whether it's a talk by the Dalai Lama, a film
screening or a photo exhibit.
But times have changed. Today when it comes to academia, Chinese officials no longer have to go public with their opposition.
They are able to wield influence behind closed doors, through individuals and institutions embedded on university campuses.
Directly or indirectly, these individuals and institutions are dependent on Beijing for financial support and research access (visas
can be denied if someone's work displeases Beijing).
In the case of the University of Sydney, acting as Beijing's proxies were the China Studies Center, Vice Chancellor Michael
Spence and, in all likelihood, individual researchers and professors whose careers rely on their scholarly pursuits in -- and funds
from -- China.
The China Studies Center, with close ties to the Chinese government and funding from organizations like the Australian Council
for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China, was "involved" in the discussions that led to the cancellation of the Dalai
Lama's talk.
Vice Chancellor Spence, as revealed by leaked emails, was leading the charge to cancel the event. He had just returned from
one of his many trips to China -- this time for a major Chinese business forum with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
During his tenure, Spence has prioritized close relations with China, and launched a $20 million Centre for Carbon, Water and
Food at Sydney University in collaboration with the Chinese Academy of Agriculture Science.
"Thank you so much for your skill in dealing with this situation so effectively and in the best interests of researchers across the
university. I think that the negotiated solution meets all the concerns."
When the Vice Chancellor wrote these words to the director of the university's Institute for Democracy and Human Rights
(IDHR) after the IDHR's decision to move the Dalai Lama talk off campus and withdraw official support from it, he thought they
were cleaning up an awkward situation, avoiding a backlash that could either jeopardize the university's funding, hamper
researchers' access to China, or embarrass the university in the eyes of the public.
By dealing with the situation in this quiet and civil way, Spence was removing the need for Beijing to launch an aggressive
attack on the university, and ensuring that the university's attempt to muzzle the Dalai Lama was kept out of the public eye.
Why draw more attention to the issue and risk all the bad publicity when it could all be taken care of behind closed doors with a
few emails and phone calls?
What may have happened elsewhere
When the University of Tasmania canceled plans to give the Dalai Lama an honorary degree in 2009 it was receiving nearly $30
million a year in revenue from Chinese students. Though there was no hard proof linking Chinese pressure with the university's
change of heart, officials did admit that the issue had been discussed in a meeting with Chinese officials.
That same year, North Carolina State University canceled plans to host a talk by the Dalai Lama in Raleigh. University officials
claimed the cancellation was due to organizational issues but admitted they were concerned about upsetting Beijing and had
been warned by the head of the Chinese government-funded Confucius Institute on campus that hosting the Dalai Lama could
undermine relations with China.
More recently, there have been whispers at the University of Notre Dame that initial plans to award an honorary degree to the
Dalai Lama were replaced by suspicious silence. Now, it seems, Gu Bing, the President of Tsinghua University, will make the trip
to Indiana to receive his own honorary degree.
These incidents, seen together, reflect an emerging pattern: behind-the-scenes pressure from the Chinese government and its
agents, in conjunction with preemptive self-censorship caused by a fear of retaliation by Beijing, is keeping some universities
from recognizing or even welcoming the Dalai Lama on campus.
This campaign represents a new phase in the long-standing effort by the Chinese authorities to erode widespread global support
for Tibet. In the eyes of Beijing, the Dalai Lama is the primary source of this support and therefore his activities and meetings
must be curbed.
It's all a part of the plan
A telling passage from a speech entitled "Tibet-related external propaganda and Tibetology in the new era" by Zhao Qizheng,
former Director of China's State Council's Information Office, leaked to the outside world in 2001, illustrates how Beijing views
the Dalai Lama's global public appearances as a threat:
"During public gatherings, the Dalai [sic] portrays himself as a humble spiritual teacher and pretends to be seeking dialogues
and autonomy. He lays pretense to non-violence and makes utmost efforts not to mix politics in his talks. He speaks on
religion, ethics, culture, democracy, freedom and human rights. This has gained him unprecedented international support and
solidarity."
Discussed explicitly throughout Zhao's speech is a plan to erode support for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan issue through long-
term strategies that call for proactive engagement with international NGOs, Western academics and intellectuals. This
engagement will be carried out primarily by Tibetologists, both Chinese and foreign, who are favorable to Beijing. The minister
lays it out clearly, stating: "External propaganda struggle for public opinion should be treated as an important work, requiring
relentless attention. We should launch a coordinated assault on different fronts."
In the years since this document was leaked, we have witnessed Chinese authorities executing almost all of the tactics outlined
in Zhao's speech, most recently at the University of Sydney. Just last year, the school was again embroiled in controversy when
the Confucius Institute on campus hosted a lecture entitled "The Selection of the Dalai Lama and its Political, Religious & Social
Influence on Tibet" by Zhang Yun, an academic from the Chinese Center for Tibetan Studies who is widely known as a
mouthpiece for the Chinese government.
Ultimate access
While Chinese leaders are far from destroying support for the Dalai Lama and "winning over" global public opinion on Tibet as a
result of these strategic efforts, they are clearly making progress in their attempts to gain influence over Western audiences --
most notably with the establishment of more than 400 Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms at university and
secondary schools around the world that are operated by a branch of China's Ministry of Education.
Confucius Institutes are the flagship of Beijing's global soft power strategy, designed to promote a positive image of China by
purportedly spreading Chinese language and culture. By offering a packaged deal of curriculum, teachers and funds to
increasingly cash-strapped universities and colleges, Beijing has gained considerable access to -- and influence over -- Western
academia.
The establishment of Confucius Institutes has been met with opposition because of fears that they will compromise academic
freedom. Free and open discussion on topics that China considers sensitive -- like Tibet, Xinjiang and Falun Gong -- is
essentially forbidden and there are reports that Chinese government propaganda has been offered up as fact on topics such as
the Korean War and Taiwan. McMaster University in Canada will soon shut down its Confucius Institute because of the
requirement that instructors not have any association with groups like the Falun Gong spiritual sect which is banned by the
Chinese government.
Yet in spite of the controversy surrounding the proliferation of Confucius Institutes, they are now firmly established on over 400
campuses worldwide and the Chinese government aims to reach 500 by 2020.
When you misbehave
With China's influence growing on so many university campuses around the world, how long can Chinese government pressure
be held at bay in these institutions? If university officials risk provoking Beijing and host the Dalai Lama, what happens
afterwards, when the spotlight goes away?
One telling scenario occurred at the University of Calgary, where administrators went ahead with plans to confer an honorary
degree on the Dalai Lama in 2009, only to discover later that the school had been removed from the list of accredited
universities in China. At that time, a spokesperson for the University of Calgary publicly stated: "We have offended our Chinese
partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue." In April 2011, the university
was re-accredited after what was described as "great relationship building" by the new President with the Chinese consulate.
Of course, it's not only academia on which the Chinese authorities are exerting pressure; it's everyone, everywhere. Most
recently, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, was targeted by Chinese authorities following his meeting with the Dalai Lama
last year. Already forced to cancel a scheduled visit to China in April when it was made clear that he would not be allowed to
meet with senior Chinese leaders, Cameron is now being pushed to apologize for the meeting .
Wielding this powerful combination of rewards, threats and punishment, the Chinese government is becoming more and more
capable of bending the world to its will on Tibet. This disturbing trend makes one worry about the future of the Tibetan
struggle.
For more than two decades, His Holiness has enjoyed tremendous global support. Many of us take it for granted that this will
always be the case, that most doors will always be open to him. But Chinese leaders have been working relentlessly to close
those doors and roll back support for Tibet.
It's clear we need to fight back. But how? What strength do we possess that can help us protect the political influence and
access that the Dalai Lama has built over the decades?
The answer lies where it always has -- with the grassroots -- and the incident at the University of Sydney shows us the way.
Grassroots power
In spite of all the time, effort and money the Chinese government has spent trying to forward its political objectives abroad,
the Sydney incident shows us that Beijing is vulnerable in the face of mobilized grassroots power -- citizens who speak out and
take action to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.
The University of Sydney has a Confucius Institute, a China Studies Center and a vice chancellor who has secured millions of
dollars in Chinese government support and is clearly interested in strengthening this lucrative relationship. But all of these
forces combined were not enough to stop the power of the popular grassroots opinion once the issue of the Dalai Lama's
exclusion was publicized.
And herein lies the key: the issue had to be exposed in order for the grassroots to mobilize. If a handful of individuals at the
University had not taken action to expose the injustice taking place behind the scenes in real time, we would not have had the
time or the ability to mount the campaign.
In the end, Tibetans and supporters were able to build awareness and ignite global support through mainstream and social
media, and to use this collective power to create momentum and political capital to pressure the university into doing the right
thing.
A single Tibet supporter (Sophie Bouris) and the lone Tibetan student at Sydney University (Yeshi Palmo) working together with
the national Tibet Support Group (Australia Tibet Council) as well as international Tibet Support Groups (Students for a Free
Tibet and the International Tibet Network) along with thousands of individual activists online became a force China could not
overcome. In a few days, 15,000 individuals signed a petition urging the university to welcome the Dalai Lama. A campus
protest was planned and publicized, unnerving the administration. As criticism grew from all corners, the university buckled,
and announced it would host the Dalai Lama. It was the Tibet movement at its finest.
Protecting the Dalai Lama's legacy
Grassroots organizing is nothing new for the Tibet movement -- it is the way that support for the Dalai Lama and the Tibet
issue was built in the first place.
The Dalai Lama has spent the better part of the past four decades traveling the world spreading a message of peace and
nonviolence and highlighting the immensity of Tibetan suffering under Chinese rule. Individual citizens have embraced him,
turning out in the millions to hear his words. Against all odds and in spite of China's incredible economic, political and military
might, the Dalai Lama has become one of the most influential and beloved spiritual and political figures of the 21st century.
With little more than the concern and support of these people of conscience, the issue of Tibet has been kept alive in the
international community even after six decades of merciless Chinese repression. Countless awareness-raising events have been
organized, petitions signed, letters written, legislation passed, documentaries and movies made -- all because the injustice in
Tibet has been exposed and people have been organized to take action.
The Chinese government knows the power of the global grassroots. They may never understand its true source -- the basic
kindness and goodness of ordinary people -- but they have had to contend with its maddening force time and time again. It's
not surprising then that in the past two decades, Chinese authorities have made undermining support for the Dalai Lama and
the Tibetan issue a top priority.
It is critical that Tibetans and Tibet supporters remember these roots and confront China's attacks head-on, wherever and
whenever they appear. It is not in Tibetans' interest to keep these discussions quiet and hidden away. Burying these issues in the
back rooms and subjecting them to the slow death of silent diplomacy only serves the interests of the Chinese government and
takes away much of the power that the Dalai Lama and Tibetans have.
There are some people who believe that we are living in a "post-protest" world when it comes to Tibet. This view is based, in
part, on the belief that since the Tibet issue has not been resolved to date, all of the campaigns and demonstrations carried
out over the years must have failed and Tibetans now need try something new -- something more quiet and comfortable for
the Chinese and their allies. It also stems from the fact that the Chinese authorities have been relentless in their opposition to
Tibet support activities and have successfully scared many people, including Tibetans, away from speaking out and taking action
for Tibet in concrete political terms.
This "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mentality misses two critical truths: 1) the situation in Tibet remains unchanged
because the Chinese government is an authoritarian regime that is unwilling and, some would argue, unable to budge on the
issue; and 2) Tibet is a pressure issue that has advanced on the global stage largely because of grassroots protest.
Governments and other institutions pay attention to and take action on Tibet primarily because citizens demand it, not because
they believe they are serving any core economic or strategic interests. Quite the contrary -- the Chinese government can make
life so uncomfortable for anyone who sticks their neck out on Tibet that there is strong incentive for any person, government
or institution with interests in China to keep Tibet out of the spotlight.
This is precisely why Tibetans and supporters of human rights and academic freedom must be vigilant and expose any attempt
to shut down the Dalai Lama or discussion of the Tibetan issue -- whether it be on a university campus, in a public forum or in
the highest offices of political power -- such efforts need to be seen in the daylight of publicity and media scrutiny so that
global citizens of conscience can help us demand justice and unleash their grassroots power.
Certainly for Tibetans living in free countries, this is our primary obligation -- perhaps even our raison d'etre -- to speak truth
to power and further strengthen global support for Tibet while pushing for real and meaningful change inside our homeland.
This is His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama's greatest legacy and we must never allow the Chinese government to silence his voice,
or ours.
Follow Lhadon Tethong on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lhadon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lhadon-tethong/inside-job-beijings-new-a_b_3353844.html
Posted: 05/30/2013 5:00 pm
When the University of Sydney canceled a scheduled talk by the Dalai Lama it revealed the threat that the Chinese state's
growing influence on Western campuses poses to academic freedom and highlighted Beijing's behind-the-scenes campaign to
undermine the Dalai Lama's legacy. What happened next served to remind Tibetans and supporters of the importance of
making these battles public and fighting them using the power of the grassroots.
What happened in Sydney?
The controversy that played out at the University of Sydney last month is nothing new. For years, the Chinese government has
protested any institution that dared to provide a platform for the Tibetan cause, whether it's a talk by the Dalai Lama, a film
screening or a photo exhibit.
But times have changed. Today when it comes to academia, Chinese officials no longer have to go public with their opposition.
They are able to wield influence behind closed doors, through individuals and institutions embedded on university campuses.
Directly or indirectly, these individuals and institutions are dependent on Beijing for financial support and research access (visas
can be denied if someone's work displeases Beijing).
In the case of the University of Sydney, acting as Beijing's proxies were the China Studies Center, Vice Chancellor Michael
Spence and, in all likelihood, individual researchers and professors whose careers rely on their scholarly pursuits in -- and funds
from -- China.
The China Studies Center, with close ties to the Chinese government and funding from organizations like the Australian Council
for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China, was "involved" in the discussions that led to the cancellation of the Dalai
Lama's talk.
Vice Chancellor Spence, as revealed by leaked emails, was leading the charge to cancel the event. He had just returned from
one of his many trips to China -- this time for a major Chinese business forum with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
During his tenure, Spence has prioritized close relations with China, and launched a $20 million Centre for Carbon, Water and
Food at Sydney University in collaboration with the Chinese Academy of Agriculture Science.
"Thank you so much for your skill in dealing with this situation so effectively and in the best interests of researchers across the
university. I think that the negotiated solution meets all the concerns."
When the Vice Chancellor wrote these words to the director of the university's Institute for Democracy and Human Rights
(IDHR) after the IDHR's decision to move the Dalai Lama talk off campus and withdraw official support from it, he thought they
were cleaning up an awkward situation, avoiding a backlash that could either jeopardize the university's funding, hamper
researchers' access to China, or embarrass the university in the eyes of the public.
By dealing with the situation in this quiet and civil way, Spence was removing the need for Beijing to launch an aggressive
attack on the university, and ensuring that the university's attempt to muzzle the Dalai Lama was kept out of the public eye.
Why draw more attention to the issue and risk all the bad publicity when it could all be taken care of behind closed doors with a
few emails and phone calls?
What may have happened elsewhere
When the University of Tasmania canceled plans to give the Dalai Lama an honorary degree in 2009 it was receiving nearly $30
million a year in revenue from Chinese students. Though there was no hard proof linking Chinese pressure with the university's
change of heart, officials did admit that the issue had been discussed in a meeting with Chinese officials.
That same year, North Carolina State University canceled plans to host a talk by the Dalai Lama in Raleigh. University officials
claimed the cancellation was due to organizational issues but admitted they were concerned about upsetting Beijing and had
been warned by the head of the Chinese government-funded Confucius Institute on campus that hosting the Dalai Lama could
undermine relations with China.
More recently, there have been whispers at the University of Notre Dame that initial plans to award an honorary degree to the
Dalai Lama were replaced by suspicious silence. Now, it seems, Gu Bing, the President of Tsinghua University, will make the trip
to Indiana to receive his own honorary degree.
These incidents, seen together, reflect an emerging pattern: behind-the-scenes pressure from the Chinese government and its
agents, in conjunction with preemptive self-censorship caused by a fear of retaliation by Beijing, is keeping some universities
from recognizing or even welcoming the Dalai Lama on campus.
This campaign represents a new phase in the long-standing effort by the Chinese authorities to erode widespread global support
for Tibet. In the eyes of Beijing, the Dalai Lama is the primary source of this support and therefore his activities and meetings
must be curbed.
It's all a part of the plan
A telling passage from a speech entitled "Tibet-related external propaganda and Tibetology in the new era" by Zhao Qizheng,
former Director of China's State Council's Information Office, leaked to the outside world in 2001, illustrates how Beijing views
the Dalai Lama's global public appearances as a threat:
"During public gatherings, the Dalai [sic] portrays himself as a humble spiritual teacher and pretends to be seeking dialogues
and autonomy. He lays pretense to non-violence and makes utmost efforts not to mix politics in his talks. He speaks on
religion, ethics, culture, democracy, freedom and human rights. This has gained him unprecedented international support and
solidarity."
Discussed explicitly throughout Zhao's speech is a plan to erode support for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan issue through long-
term strategies that call for proactive engagement with international NGOs, Western academics and intellectuals. This
engagement will be carried out primarily by Tibetologists, both Chinese and foreign, who are favorable to Beijing. The minister
lays it out clearly, stating: "External propaganda struggle for public opinion should be treated as an important work, requiring
relentless attention. We should launch a coordinated assault on different fronts."
In the years since this document was leaked, we have witnessed Chinese authorities executing almost all of the tactics outlined
in Zhao's speech, most recently at the University of Sydney. Just last year, the school was again embroiled in controversy when
the Confucius Institute on campus hosted a lecture entitled "The Selection of the Dalai Lama and its Political, Religious & Social
Influence on Tibet" by Zhang Yun, an academic from the Chinese Center for Tibetan Studies who is widely known as a
mouthpiece for the Chinese government.
Ultimate access
While Chinese leaders are far from destroying support for the Dalai Lama and "winning over" global public opinion on Tibet as a
result of these strategic efforts, they are clearly making progress in their attempts to gain influence over Western audiences --
most notably with the establishment of more than 400 Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms at university and
secondary schools around the world that are operated by a branch of China's Ministry of Education.
Confucius Institutes are the flagship of Beijing's global soft power strategy, designed to promote a positive image of China by
purportedly spreading Chinese language and culture. By offering a packaged deal of curriculum, teachers and funds to
increasingly cash-strapped universities and colleges, Beijing has gained considerable access to -- and influence over -- Western
academia.
The establishment of Confucius Institutes has been met with opposition because of fears that they will compromise academic
freedom. Free and open discussion on topics that China considers sensitive -- like Tibet, Xinjiang and Falun Gong -- is
essentially forbidden and there are reports that Chinese government propaganda has been offered up as fact on topics such as
the Korean War and Taiwan. McMaster University in Canada will soon shut down its Confucius Institute because of the
requirement that instructors not have any association with groups like the Falun Gong spiritual sect which is banned by the
Chinese government.
Yet in spite of the controversy surrounding the proliferation of Confucius Institutes, they are now firmly established on over 400
campuses worldwide and the Chinese government aims to reach 500 by 2020.
When you misbehave
With China's influence growing on so many university campuses around the world, how long can Chinese government pressure
be held at bay in these institutions? If university officials risk provoking Beijing and host the Dalai Lama, what happens
afterwards, when the spotlight goes away?
One telling scenario occurred at the University of Calgary, where administrators went ahead with plans to confer an honorary
degree on the Dalai Lama in 2009, only to discover later that the school had been removed from the list of accredited
universities in China. At that time, a spokesperson for the University of Calgary publicly stated: "We have offended our Chinese
partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue." In April 2011, the university
was re-accredited after what was described as "great relationship building" by the new President with the Chinese consulate.
Of course, it's not only academia on which the Chinese authorities are exerting pressure; it's everyone, everywhere. Most
recently, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, was targeted by Chinese authorities following his meeting with the Dalai Lama
last year. Already forced to cancel a scheduled visit to China in April when it was made clear that he would not be allowed to
meet with senior Chinese leaders, Cameron is now being pushed to apologize for the meeting .
Wielding this powerful combination of rewards, threats and punishment, the Chinese government is becoming more and more
capable of bending the world to its will on Tibet. This disturbing trend makes one worry about the future of the Tibetan
struggle.
For more than two decades, His Holiness has enjoyed tremendous global support. Many of us take it for granted that this will
always be the case, that most doors will always be open to him. But Chinese leaders have been working relentlessly to close
those doors and roll back support for Tibet.
It's clear we need to fight back. But how? What strength do we possess that can help us protect the political influence and
access that the Dalai Lama has built over the decades?
The answer lies where it always has -- with the grassroots -- and the incident at the University of Sydney shows us the way.
Grassroots power
In spite of all the time, effort and money the Chinese government has spent trying to forward its political objectives abroad,
the Sydney incident shows us that Beijing is vulnerable in the face of mobilized grassroots power -- citizens who speak out and
take action to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.
The University of Sydney has a Confucius Institute, a China Studies Center and a vice chancellor who has secured millions of
dollars in Chinese government support and is clearly interested in strengthening this lucrative relationship. But all of these
forces combined were not enough to stop the power of the popular grassroots opinion once the issue of the Dalai Lama's
exclusion was publicized.
And herein lies the key: the issue had to be exposed in order for the grassroots to mobilize. If a handful of individuals at the
University had not taken action to expose the injustice taking place behind the scenes in real time, we would not have had the
time or the ability to mount the campaign.
In the end, Tibetans and supporters were able to build awareness and ignite global support through mainstream and social
media, and to use this collective power to create momentum and political capital to pressure the university into doing the right
thing.
A single Tibet supporter (Sophie Bouris) and the lone Tibetan student at Sydney University (Yeshi Palmo) working together with
the national Tibet Support Group (Australia Tibet Council) as well as international Tibet Support Groups (Students for a Free
Tibet and the International Tibet Network) along with thousands of individual activists online became a force China could not
overcome. In a few days, 15,000 individuals signed a petition urging the university to welcome the Dalai Lama. A campus
protest was planned and publicized, unnerving the administration. As criticism grew from all corners, the university buckled,
and announced it would host the Dalai Lama. It was the Tibet movement at its finest.
Protecting the Dalai Lama's legacy
Grassroots organizing is nothing new for the Tibet movement -- it is the way that support for the Dalai Lama and the Tibet
issue was built in the first place.
The Dalai Lama has spent the better part of the past four decades traveling the world spreading a message of peace and
nonviolence and highlighting the immensity of Tibetan suffering under Chinese rule. Individual citizens have embraced him,
turning out in the millions to hear his words. Against all odds and in spite of China's incredible economic, political and military
might, the Dalai Lama has become one of the most influential and beloved spiritual and political figures of the 21st century.
With little more than the concern and support of these people of conscience, the issue of Tibet has been kept alive in the
international community even after six decades of merciless Chinese repression. Countless awareness-raising events have been
organized, petitions signed, letters written, legislation passed, documentaries and movies made -- all because the injustice in
Tibet has been exposed and people have been organized to take action.
The Chinese government knows the power of the global grassroots. They may never understand its true source -- the basic
kindness and goodness of ordinary people -- but they have had to contend with its maddening force time and time again. It's
not surprising then that in the past two decades, Chinese authorities have made undermining support for the Dalai Lama and
the Tibetan issue a top priority.
It is critical that Tibetans and Tibet supporters remember these roots and confront China's attacks head-on, wherever and
whenever they appear. It is not in Tibetans' interest to keep these discussions quiet and hidden away. Burying these issues in the
back rooms and subjecting them to the slow death of silent diplomacy only serves the interests of the Chinese government and
takes away much of the power that the Dalai Lama and Tibetans have.
There are some people who believe that we are living in a "post-protest" world when it comes to Tibet. This view is based, in
part, on the belief that since the Tibet issue has not been resolved to date, all of the campaigns and demonstrations carried
out over the years must have failed and Tibetans now need try something new -- something more quiet and comfortable for
the Chinese and their allies. It also stems from the fact that the Chinese authorities have been relentless in their opposition to
Tibet support activities and have successfully scared many people, including Tibetans, away from speaking out and taking action
for Tibet in concrete political terms.
This "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mentality misses two critical truths: 1) the situation in Tibet remains unchanged
because the Chinese government is an authoritarian regime that is unwilling and, some would argue, unable to budge on the
issue; and 2) Tibet is a pressure issue that has advanced on the global stage largely because of grassroots protest.
Governments and other institutions pay attention to and take action on Tibet primarily because citizens demand it, not because
they believe they are serving any core economic or strategic interests. Quite the contrary -- the Chinese government can make
life so uncomfortable for anyone who sticks their neck out on Tibet that there is strong incentive for any person, government
or institution with interests in China to keep Tibet out of the spotlight.
This is precisely why Tibetans and supporters of human rights and academic freedom must be vigilant and expose any attempt
to shut down the Dalai Lama or discussion of the Tibetan issue -- whether it be on a university campus, in a public forum or in
the highest offices of political power -- such efforts need to be seen in the daylight of publicity and media scrutiny so that
global citizens of conscience can help us demand justice and unleash their grassroots power.
Certainly for Tibetans living in free countries, this is our primary obligation -- perhaps even our raison d'etre -- to speak truth
to power and further strengthen global support for Tibet while pushing for real and meaningful change inside our homeland.
This is His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama's greatest legacy and we must never allow the Chinese government to silence his voice,
or ours.
Follow Lhadon Tethong on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lhadon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lhadon-tethong/inside-job-beijings-new-a_b_3353844.html
lo yeeOn
Jun 1, 2013, 7:00:52 PM6/1/13
to
In article <3426954.hMrDNVXL4M@Dharma>,
It's merely democracy at work.
The $30 million a year in revenue from Chinese students means probably
about one to three thousand Chinese students being a part of the
university community.
How many students there really want to hear the quaint, simplistic,
monk talk about things he himself knows little about?
Worse, he is just a hypocritically proselytizing cowardly monk who
fled at the first sight of trouble with his hoard of gold when the PLA
came and demanded that he take up land reforms for his landless
people.
Now the reason why there are even a thousand Chinese students at the
Tasmanian university is testimony to the success of the CCP's policies
for the Chinese people.
So, the decision at the university is just to honor a significant
component of the university community - that is just democracy at
work, pure and simple!
The CIA can keep financing the activities to "go public" with this and
that, but college campuses all around the globe are obligated to deal
with the Chinese citizens who populate their community.
Go for it, Neljor!
lo yeeOn
The $30 million a year in revenue from Chinese students means probably
about one to three thousand Chinese students being a part of the
university community.
How many students there really want to hear the quaint, simplistic,
monk talk about things he himself knows little about?
Worse, he is just a hypocritically proselytizing cowardly monk who
fled at the first sight of trouble with his hoard of gold when the PLA
came and demanded that he take up land reforms for his landless
people.
Now the reason why there are even a thousand Chinese students at the
Tasmanian university is testimony to the success of the CCP's policies
for the Chinese people.
So, the decision at the university is just to honor a significant
component of the university community - that is just democracy at
work, pure and simple!
The CIA can keep financing the activities to "go public" with this and
that, but college campuses all around the globe are obligated to deal
with the Chinese citizens who populate their community.
Go for it, Neljor!
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra
Jun 2, 2013, 6:57:53 AM6/2/13
to
lo yeeOn wrote:
> Just democracy at work, pure and simple!
What is Common Sense?
Wishing you love & Peace, Peter/Neljor
> Just democracy at work, pure and simple!
What is Common Sense?
Wishing you love & Peace, Peter/Neljor
~
Jun 2, 2013, 7:30:00 AM6/2/13
to
If you have any, you will start
counting the number of days, hours,
minutes, seconds the Dalai Lama have.
Yours are not much more, may be less.
May your desert god take you back.
Money money oh more money.
"Peter Terpstra" <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2984002.FixmFllSN7@Dharma...
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
counting the number of days, hours,
minutes, seconds the Dalai Lama have.
Yours are not much more, may be less.
May your desert god take you back.
Money money oh more money.
"Peter Terpstra" <peter.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2984002.FixmFllSN7@Dharma...
rst9
Jun 2, 2013, 11:49:22 AM6/2/13
to
On Jun 1, 11:34 am, Peter Terpstra <peter.terpst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Inside Job: Beijing's New Allies in Its War on Tibet
> Posted: 05/30/2013 5:00 pm
>
> When the University of Sydney canceled a scheduled talk by the Dalai Lama
Who wants to listen to a pawn and a master jester and clown?
> Inside Job: Beijing's New Allies in Its War on Tibet
> Posted: 05/30/2013 5:00 pm
>
> When the University of Sydney canceled a scheduled talk by the Dalai Lama
It's not worth the time.
>
> read more »
lo yeeOn
Jun 2, 2013, 8:24:21 PM6/2/13
to
1) While the US State Department keeps bugging China about the
Tiananmen Square event of 1989 around this time every year, let's
remember that China's accounting of it has been vindicated by US
diplomatic cables obtained wikileaks:
Unmentioned but even more unmentionable.
* * * * *
http://tinyurl.com/4xmlkxb
China's claims over Tiananmen Square backed
Malcolm Moore, The Daily Telegraph: Friday, June 3, 2011
Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing have shown there
was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square when China put down student
pro-democracy demonstrations 22 years ago.
The cables, obtained by Wikileaks and released exclusively by The Daily
Telegraph, partly confirm the Chinese government's account of the early
hours of June 4, 1989. It has always insisted that soldiers did not
massacre demonstrators inside the square.
Instead, Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the centre
of Beijing as they fought their way towards the square from the west of
the city.
Three cables were sent from the U.S. embassy on June 3 in the hours
leading up to the final confrontation.
The cables described the "10,000 to 15,000 helmeted, armed troops"
moving into the city, some of whom were "carrying automatic weapons".
At the same time, "elite airborne troops" and "tank units" were said to
be moving up from the south.
The army came up against "an elaborate system of blockades", described
in a cable from May 21, 1989, which allowed students to "control much of
central Beijing".
Inside the square, a Chilean diplomat who was positioned next to a Red
Cross station, was on hand to give his U.S. counterparts an eye-witness
account of the final hours of the pro-democracy movement.
"He watched the military enter the square and did not observe any mass
firing of weapons into the crowds, although sporadic gunfire was heard.
"He said that most of the troops which entered the square were armed
only with anti-riot gear - truncheons and wooden clubs; they were backed
up by armed soldiers," a cable from July 1989 said.
Leaders of the protest urged the students to leave the square, and the
Chilean diplomat relayed that "once agreement was reached for the
students to withdraw, linking hands to form a column, the students left
the square through the south-east corner".
2) Chai Ling, the "1989 Beijing democracy movement goddess" apparently
wanted precious blood to spill to force the government to accept the
protesters' huge demand for political change, all of a sudden!
Chai Ling: Speech-Squelching Narcissistic Megalomaniac B*tch!
by Kai Pan, posted in News & Issues
http://cnreviews.com/life/news-issues/chai-ling-speech-squelching-narcissistic-meglomaniac_20090612.html
Yeah, you liked that title, didn't you?
Alright, here's the deal: I've never been very fond of Chai Ling ever
since I learned about her back at Cal. For those who aren't familiar
with her, she was one of the student leaders of the Tiananmen Square
protests 20 years ago, elected as their "Supreme Commander" as it
were. Most people who hate her, probably hate her because of her
appearance on the award-winning documentary "The Gate of Heavenly
Peace" where she arguably came across as a sniveling self-centered,
power-hungry, emotional wreck quoted as secretly desiring bloodshed to
advance her ends:
`The students kept asking, "What should we do next? What can we
accomplish?" I feel so sad, because how can I tell them that what we
are actually hoping for is bloodshed, for the moment when the
government has no choice but to brazenly butcher us. Only when the
Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their
eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain this
to my fellow students? And what is truly sad is that some students,
and famous well-connected people, are working hard to help the
government, to prevent it from taking such measures. For the sake of
their selfish interests and their private dealings they are trying to
cause our movement to collapse and get us out of the Square before the
government becomes so desperate that it takes action.'
Well, bloodshed happened.
While there's no question that the government military is
predominantly culpable for the use of deadly force, there remains
significant controversy as to what degree student leaders like Chai
Ling may have intentionally kept more people in harm's way when the
prospect of harm was arguably obvious. Dying for a good cause is noble
and everything, but coming across as wishing harm upon your supporters
is a little distasteful. What the students and workers wanted was
laudable, but I'm not so keen about many of the things she did
throughout the demonstrations leading up to the bloody end and
thereafter.
She was kinda cute though.
http://cnreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/chailing-tiananmen-square-1989-2-320x240.jpg
So why am I writing about Chai Ling right now? Danwei kindly linked us
to a June 7th article by Yvonne Abraham in the Boston Globe. In it,
the writer blasts Chai Ling for using the American court system and
frivolous lawsuits to squelch the makers of the aforementioned
documentary, Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon. Actually, to be precise,
Chai Ling is using her successful and wealthy software company,
Jenzabar Inc. to sue the filmmakers' far less financially endowed
non-profit organization, Long Bow Films, with a case even the judge
cautions them as unlikely to win. So far, Chai Ling has burned up over
$70,000 of Long Bow's assets in legal fees just for the latter to
defend themselves against her persecution prosecution.
From the Boston Globe:
`Janzabar sued the filmmakers' company, Long Bow Films, for
defamation - just for directing readers to the articles Chai and
her company say are offensive and inaccurate. A Suffolk Superior
Court judge wisely threw the defamation charge out. The First
Amendment guarantees the people's right to say - and cite - even
things you don't like, after all.
But the case has dragged on because Jenzabar is also contending
that just by using the company's name as a tag on its website, Long
Bow is guilty of trademark infringement'
This issue was also reported by Evan Osnos in The New Yorker and Jane
Macartney in the Times, both earlier in May.
"Tag" apparently refers to a meta tag, a list of keywords hidden in
the HTML code of a webpage that is used to suggest to search engines
how to index that webpage. If you're not familiar with HTML or Search
Engine Optimization, don't worry, because in layman's terms, Chai
basically doesn't want anyone searching for Jenzabar to accidentally
wind up on The Long Bow Group's webpage and, you know, see all this
negative stuff about Chai Ling and Jenzabar.
Chai Ling maintains that "The Gate of Heavenly Peace" took her
comments out of context or translated them incorrectly (the quote at
the top of this post is the translation). Other student leaders have
written to the documentary-makers and have established a website
(blocked in China, naturally) defending her. It's difficult not to
suspect a conflict of interest when it comes between telling what
happened (and what was said/meant) and ensuring that your fans in the
West still think you were a great, peaceful, pro-democratic,
anti-communist, anti-oppression leader of idealistic self-sacrificing
students. Of course, that conflict of interest doesn't necessarily
mean they're engaging in revisionism, it just means we're reduced to a
he-said she-said hearsay sort of thing, with none of us really being
able to determine, with complete certainty, how "misquoted" she was.
Now that I've "defamed" Chai Ling, I do want to acknowledge the fact
that she isn't 100% evil. In fact, she's done many a good thing,
including making something of herself through education and hard
work. In mini-Gates and mini-Buffet fashion, she's even used the
wealth she's built up over the years to recently donate $1 million
dollars (Dr. Evil reference here) as a humanitarian effort to support
the advance of human rights and peaceful democracy in China. I'm all
for that.
That said, I'm still not very fond of what she said before, how she's
behaved with regards to the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, and what
she's doing now.
What do you think? Is Chai Ling a nauseating hypocrite, now seeking to
squelch others' freedom of speech when it says something bad about
herself? Or does she have a legal, lawful, or even moral (you know,
"moral imperatives" and all that) case?
---------------------------------------
The Fall of Lady Liberty and Chai Ling's Revenge
Sunday, June 14, 2009
http://insideoutchina.blogspot.com/2009/06/fall-of-lady-liberty-and-chai-lings.html
Years ago when I first saw the documentary "The Gate of Heavenly
Peace" at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, my impression of Chai Ling was
mixed. From what the former student leader said in her controversial
interview (available in both Chinese and English) with an American
journalist, it was certainly appalling that she expected the deaths of
many fellow students to serve the 1989 movement's purposes. On the
other hand, she looked genuinely grief-stricken by the prospect of
bloodshed, and I couldn't help but feel sympathy toward her as
well. After all, she was only 23 years old, a young woman who had
grown up in China's "revolutionary heroism" culture. In such a
culture, there's nothing out of place with what she expressed, that
only the blood of innocent people can awake and enlighten more
people. It is from a Western perspective that such an idea is simply
unacceptable.
What I'm saying is, more of the blame should be placed on the
revolutionary education she grew up with, rather than her naivety of
believing in it. Who was not once young and naive? I happen to also
think Wang Dan has a point that no matter what Chai Ling had said, she
did stay in the Square with other students until the last minute, and
her action was more important than her words. (For the record, "The
Gate of Heavenly Peace" also truthfully reported this fact.)
Reading excerpts of the newly published Tiananmen Moon (h/t The China
Beat) by Philip Cunningham, the very journalist who interviewed Chai
Ling 20 years ago, made me feel that Chai Ling might have been more
innocent than some have thought. Although her idea of using bloodshed
to arouse people was hardly a moral one, she appeared to be sincere
and serious about the student movement and was indignant toward some
other selfish power-thirsty student leaders. As such, I'd like to
believe the young Chai Ling twenty years ago was a humanly imperfect
idealist, as young activists are. If she sometimes took herself too
importantly, it was largely because of the situation: being young and
the leader of a mass movement can carry anyone away.
Today Chai Ling has become an American businesswoman. She is 43 years
old, certainly no longer naivetyve, and apparently has done well
financially. Now with the wealth she has gained in the democracy of
America, she starts a new fight, only this time her target is not a
totalitarian government but a critical part of democracy: an
independent, nonprofit film maker who dared to express criticism
toward both the Chinese government, and some student leaders, however
slight of the latter.
Whatever legal reasons Chai Ling has been deploying, "defamation" or
"infringing trademark," the drunkard's heart is not in the cup: the
real nature of Chai Ling's lawsuit against Long Bow the firm maker
seems more personal, as many internet articles have pointed out. From
a societal point of view, this lawsuit is a big regression in Chai
Ling's political ideal. From a personal point of view, her motivation
is explicable yet the action is totally unwise.
If it is excusable that Chai Ling didn't have a concrete idea of
democracy when she was leading that democracy movement two decades
ago, shouldn't one expect her to have gained a lot more understanding
now, after living in the West for all these years? Or so I'd thought.
It might be helpful to reflect here on a historical case that bears
some remarkable similarity: the so-called Times v. Sullivan case in
the 1960s, on which the Supreme Court's decision "revolutionized libel
law in America." Here's a description of the case from the US supreme
court media website:
"Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a
full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of
the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a
campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and
encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city
commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four
black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that
the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him
personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he
had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was
unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a
$500,000 judgment."
At the time, the NY Times was having financial problems, and being
charged with this astronomical amount of money put it in the danger of
bankruptcy. The paper appealed to the Supreme Court, and "the Court
believed it was important for the survival of democracy in the United
States that the press be allowed to aggressively report on public
matters without excessive fear of being sued for libel." [1] The
charge was dismissed. Because of the Supreme Court's wise decision,
today we still have the NY Times to read.
Note that this Court decision was made in 1964, and helped establish
the precedence to protect the press from similar liability lawsuits.
Now it is 45 years later. If Chai Ling had any idea about the meaning
of First Amendment, or the meaning of a free press, would she have
sued Long Bow? On the societal level, surely she doesn't wish American
democracy go backward to what it was before 1964? On the personal
level, did she ever worry about others' suspicions of her motives?
In any case, it is certainly another mistake Chai Ling is making,
hurting both others and herself, but this time it can no longer be
explained away by innocence. How on earth could a woman as smart as
she is think she could re-glorify her name through such a lawsuit?
From what I can see, Long Bow's on-line appeal has gained extensive
support from American academics, the English media, and internet
readers (including me), while the appeal written by Chai Ling's
ex-husband in her name collected a few signatures hardly reaching
beyond the circle of old comrades, some of whom managed to be vague.
For example Wang Juntao says in a straddle-the-fence way that he's
friends with both sides and he understands and supports both. Go
figure.
I wonder if Chai Ling really doesn't see the reality that, while she
has succeeded in financially hurting Long Bow, an accompanying
consequence is a further deterioration of her own name. And, does
anyone notice that her language against Long Bow sound awfully
familiar? In 1989, the then-government of China named the student
movement a "counter-revolutionary riot," one of the worst crimes at
the time. Of course, no one (except some soldiers) believed it. Now
Chai Ling calls Long Bow the Communist sympathizer, one of the most
hated names in America. Does she really think people with their own
eyes and minds would buy that accusation? As an example, this is how
the New Yorker commented:
"For the record, to anyone with knowledge of the film, the notion that
it is sympathetic to the Chinese government is laughable. But,
whatever happens with the suit, it's hard to imagine a more acute
measure of how far the student movement has faded into memory."
In this way Chai Ling not only does disservice to herself but also to
the overseas Chinese democracy movement, damage that her
million-dollar pledge won't repair.
But what makes a once brave democracy fighter sink so low as to use
the same means of propaganda she had suffered under to attack her foes
now? I'm really puzzled. This is the final stroke that manages to
erase whatever sympathy I had for her. In the end, her loss might be
bigger than Long Bow's. I'm not talking about money.
----------
[1] The Evolution of American Investigative Journalism by James L.Aucoin
Posted by Xujun Eberlein at 11:34 AM
19 comments:
Anonymous said...
The tape is important, but it was made by an amateur and should be
seen as such.
For even though Philip Cunningham cares not to correct people when
they give him the credit, he was not then nor has he ever been a
journalist. He was a student who used a HK crew and their video
camera (and someone else's tape recorder) to record an interview
with Ms. Chai. At the time of the taping, he was not employed by
anyone, but neither was he a freelance journalist.
Cunningham was hired and employed as a translator for BBC. He knew
some people who knew Chai and so that is how he got to talk and
tape her. Cunningham is identified frequently as a "journalist"
but he was neither accredited nor filed stories for any news
agency.
Chai's remarks are interesting but Cunningham clearly did not
understand what she was saying and was not interviewing her as a
journalist, only as someone who happened to have access through
other people. If you look at the tape, you will see that he does
not follow-up on her statement about "blood in the streets".
Indeed, Cunningham admits to have participated in one of the
marches and threw stones at soldiers and tanks that made the
assault--something that journalists do not do.
By the way, a careful reader will note that there are many
differences between what is in Cunningham's book and what appeared
on the web. The latter are advertised as excerpts but they are
not.
June 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM
. . .
pug ster said...
There's definately room for debate for Cunningham's role in the
6/4 incident as he as well as Chai Ling's role might not be so
innocent after all. Chai Ling spent alot of money in the LongBow
lawsuit but all she did is just dragging her name and her cause in
the 6/4 incident to the mud.
I think the main problem is that Westerners and Chinese don't see
eye to eye about politics, especially regarding 6/4 incident, and
Chai Ling trying to censor someone is seen as the cause, and not
the solution.
June 15, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Shane said...
"If it is excusable that Chai Ling didn't have a concrete idea of
democracy when she was leading that democracy movement two decades
ago"
Remarks like the above are quite popular in the West. How it is
possible to label a popular student rebellion as "pro-democracy"
movement when the few leading figures have no idea of what
democracy look like? It is still appall today to see these
students were allowed to engineer a server event that almost
turned China, a huge nation, upside-down in a short one-month
period of time.
In the end, it is the political zealot that drive some people to
throw their unconditioned support behind the event. The lack of
critical reasoning also undermines such very effort.
June 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM
. . .
pug ster said...
I don't see how Chai Ling and other dissidents represent an
average Chinese person when she, Wang Dan, Wu'er Kaixi and Li Lu
are Ivy League educated elites. If they want to see their cause as
righteous, they should reject Western Education ideals and fight
democracy as a grass roots campagain, and not from a western
educated and financed campagain. That's why she and the other
dissidents are not taken seriously.
June 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM
--------
Tiananmen Activist... Turned Entrepreneur... Turned User Of Trademark
To Stifle Free Speech
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=chai+ling
from the free-speech-for-me,-but-not-for-thee dept
Paul Alan Levy alerts us to yet another shameful case of someone
abusing trademark law to try to silence critics. In this case, it
involves the software company Jenzabar, which makes software for
colleges and universities, and apparently likes to play up the fact
that its founder and CEO, Ling Chai, was one of the "leaders" of the
Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989, before fleeing to America.
Apparently Chai likes to play up that connection for PR purposes, and
has been able to get the press to cover Jenzabar with headlines like
"From Tiananmen Leader to Netrepreneur" and "From Starting a
Revolution to Starting a Company.
However, when the makers of a documentary film about the uprising at
Tiananmen Square included some comments and links to articles that
were critical of Chai, she went legal. It started with a lawsuit
claiming defamation against the film makers, which got quickly tossed
out. So, instead, Chai and Jenzabar appear to be trying to use
trademark law to bankrupt the filmmakers. They've filed a trademark
lawsuit, claiming that the filmmakers' web page, that talks about Chia
and Jenzabar, violates its trademarks, noting that the page turns up
in search results on Jenzabar and the term is in the metatags.
Pretty much everyone involved recognizes that this is a ridiculous
abuse of trademark law to stifle free speech. There is no violation of
trademark here. Posting links to stories about Chai and Jenzabar that
are critical of her is not a trademark violation in any manner. Using
the term in metatags is totally meaningless. It's a shame that someone
who apparently once stood as a voice for freedom is now trying to
stifle free speech in others via trademark law abuse.
-----
Entrepreneurs
Great Story, Bad Business
Daniel Lyons, 02.17.03
http://www.forbes.com/work/free_forbes/2003/0217/114.html
Chai Ling has spent years trying to cash in on her heroism at
Tiananmen Square. But so far her Web company has brought in little
money and lots of lousy karma. Chai Ling would like total control
over her biography. In her version, she risks her life leading student
protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, escapes China stowed in a crate
and is twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Then she moves to
America and marries a millionaire venture capitalist who bankrolls her
promising Internet startup. Alas, the market crashes before the
company can go public, and it is unfairly besieged by lawsuits from
former executives, one of whom alleges that Chai and her husband have
misled investors and cheated the IRS.
"You're not going to write about that, are you?" Chai says, when asked
about the suits. "Do you really have to mention those things?" Chai's
seeming naivete' is a little out of character. She has frequently
scored points in the press by recalling her glory days as onetime
"commander-in-chief" of rebel students in Beijing.
Chai left China via Hong Kong in 1990 and arrived that year in the
U.S., where she enrolled at Princeton. In 1993, after earning a
master's degree in public affairs, she landed a job at Bain & Co., the
consultancy, and began dating one of the firm's partners, Robert
A. Maginn Jr. Chai received an M.B.A. from Harvard in 1998, the same
year she launched Cambridge, Mass.-based Jenzabar ("best and
brightest" in Mandarin) with angel funding from Maginn plus two heavy
hitters: Paul B. Fireman, the chairman of Reebok International (nyse:
RBK - news - people ), and Stephen Perlman, who cofounded WebTV and
sold it to Microsoft. Jenzabar's mission was to develop Internet-based
portals that college students could use to register for courses and
check homework assignments. By early 2000 a few colleges were testing
its software, but nobody was paying for it.
So Maginn, 46, and Chai, 36, who were engaged in 1997 and married in
2001, cooked up a new plan in which Jenzabar would gain customers by
acquiring them. In April 2000 Maginn quit his job at Bain and joined
Jenzabar, raising $40 million from investors, including his own New
Media Investors. Jenzabar bought four barely profitable companies that
made administrative software for colleges. Yoking them to Jenzabar's
portal, Chai reckoned she could offer a single vehicle to handle all
aspects of campus life.
As the market for Internet companies imploded, managers of the four
acquired outfits bickered over which products would survive. "We had a
lot of upheaval,"says Chai.
Nothing compared with what happened next. John Pierce, former owner of
one company, Cars Information Systems, sued Jenzabar, claiming it had
withheld part of his purchase price. (The dispute was settled in
arbitration, and Chai says the resolution went in Jenzabar's favor.)
Mahendran Jawaharlal, Cars' former president, sued, claiming Jenzabar
breached his separation agreement. Dwight Wyse and his son, Derek, who
owned yet another acquired company, Computer Management & Development
Services, alleged in a suit that Jenzabar had failed to repay them for
sums owed on promissory notes; their suit was in response to a
complaint by Jenzabar that claimed Dwight Wyse had leaked confidential
information to Jenzabar's rivals. Alan Frishman, former senior vice
president of operations at Jenzabar, sued, claiming the company had
denied him severance compensation after firing him in 2000. (The case
was settled last November.)
The most sensational charges come from Joseph DiLorenzo, Jenzabar's
former chief financial officer, who claims in a lawsuit that Chai and
Maginn fired him in March 2002 because he refused to assist them in
"certain unethical, inappropriate, and/or illegal actions."
DiLorenzo's complaint alleges Chai and Maginn misappropriated software
from other companies, set up sham partnerships, sent out inaccurate
press releases and earnings reports, and retroactively changed IRS
filings to escape personal tax liabilities. DiLorenzo's suit also
accuses Chai and Maginn of "self-dealing"and "commingling funds."
Chai says DiLorenzo's suit is without merit. DiLorenzo, she claims,
simply could not do his job and now is suing because he's bitter. She
says his allegations are just a ploy to shake a settlement out of the
company.
DiLorenzo won't discuss his complaint, and his lawyer would not
explain the allegations about "sham partnerships" because the case is
in the discovery process. Maginn says Jenzabar made its four-way
acquisition using subsidiaries, a routine strategy that keeps sellers
from getting nailed with the tax burden on illiquid Jenzabar shares;
by selling to a subsidiary, rather than to Jenzabar, sellers could
delay paying taxes on any gains.
The lawsuits are only part of the turmoil at Jenzabar. Last year it
sold off two companies it had recently acquired--Student-City.com, an
online travel agent that books spring-break trips for college kids,
and Progressive Solutions, which offers computer training. While
barely profitable, StudentCity added $26 million in sales, allowing
Jenzabar to boast in an August 2001 press release that its sales in
the first half of the year had grown 88% to $46.7 million. (Today, no
longer counting sales from those subsidiaries, Jenzabar says revenues
for the full year in 2001 were $42 million, growing to $50 million in
2002.) And then there's the hassle with a key investor, Pegasus
Capital Advisors, which in 2000 lent Jenzabar $25 million in the form
of convertible debt and now wants out, Maginn says. He and Chai have
tried--without luck--to find an investor to buy out Pegasus.
Where does this leave Jenzabar? Depends on whom you ask. "It's been a
little chaotic," says Chai. "But 2002 was our turnaround year. In 2003
we have our house in order and will start to grow and take market
share." Perhaps. But nabbing new clients isn't easy in the $2.7
billion market for higher-ed software, which is growing at only 2.7%
annually, reports IDC. It's especially tough given larger competitors
like SCT (nasdaq: SCTC - news - people ) (2002 fiscal sales: $238
million), whose educational software is used at half of all
U.S. colleges with more than 2,000 students, and PeopleSoft (nasdaq:
PSFT - news - people ), a $1.9 billion (sales) firm.
Maginn seems to see a different horizon. Recently he and Chai hired an
investment bank, a move that prompted rumors of a sale. "If a giant
company were to come along and make a great offer," he says, "we would
consider it." In 2000, Chai says, investment bankers told her that
Jenzabar could be worth $1 billion in a public offering. In those days
a good story could go a long way. Today it might get you just enough
money to pay off your debts.
-----
May 7, 2009
The American Dream: The Lawsuit
Posted by Evan Osnos
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2009/05/the-american-dream-the-lawsuit.html
Approaching the twentieth anniversary of the crackdown at Tiananmen
Square, on June 4th, the fate of those one-time student leaders never
ceases to amaze. I recently wrote about the campus radical turned
hedge-fund manager Li Lu, whose latest incarnation has been as a
financial advisor linking Warren Buffett to the Chinese
electric-battery producer, BYD, in the race to produce an electric
vehicle. Now comes word that Chai Ling, the student leader who
appeared on television screens around the world as the picture of
fragile, furious idealism, is now suing the makers of an award-winning
documentary about the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. "Gate of
Heavenly Peace," directed by the filmmakers Richard Gordon and Carma
Hinton, is considered, by China scholars, to be a major work on the
subject of the demonstrations. But it has been criticized by both the
Chinese government and student leaders, neither of which come out
looking especially good.
. . .
In article <2984002.FixmFllSN7@Dharma>,
Tiananmen Square event of 1989 around this time every year, let's
remember that China's accounting of it has been vindicated by US
diplomatic cables obtained wikileaks:
Unmentioned but even more unmentionable.
* * * * *
http://tinyurl.com/4xmlkxb
China's claims over Tiananmen Square backed
Malcolm Moore, The Daily Telegraph: Friday, June 3, 2011
Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing have shown there
was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square when China put down student
pro-democracy demonstrations 22 years ago.
The cables, obtained by Wikileaks and released exclusively by The Daily
Telegraph, partly confirm the Chinese government's account of the early
hours of June 4, 1989. It has always insisted that soldiers did not
massacre demonstrators inside the square.
Instead, Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the centre
of Beijing as they fought their way towards the square from the west of
the city.
Three cables were sent from the U.S. embassy on June 3 in the hours
leading up to the final confrontation.
The cables described the "10,000 to 15,000 helmeted, armed troops"
moving into the city, some of whom were "carrying automatic weapons".
At the same time, "elite airborne troops" and "tank units" were said to
be moving up from the south.
The army came up against "an elaborate system of blockades", described
in a cable from May 21, 1989, which allowed students to "control much of
central Beijing".
Inside the square, a Chilean diplomat who was positioned next to a Red
Cross station, was on hand to give his U.S. counterparts an eye-witness
account of the final hours of the pro-democracy movement.
"He watched the military enter the square and did not observe any mass
firing of weapons into the crowds, although sporadic gunfire was heard.
"He said that most of the troops which entered the square were armed
only with anti-riot gear - truncheons and wooden clubs; they were backed
up by armed soldiers," a cable from July 1989 said.
Leaders of the protest urged the students to leave the square, and the
Chilean diplomat relayed that "once agreement was reached for the
students to withdraw, linking hands to form a column, the students left
the square through the south-east corner".
2) Chai Ling, the "1989 Beijing democracy movement goddess" apparently
wanted precious blood to spill to force the government to accept the
protesters' huge demand for political change, all of a sudden!
Chai Ling: Speech-Squelching Narcissistic Megalomaniac B*tch!
by Kai Pan, posted in News & Issues
http://cnreviews.com/life/news-issues/chai-ling-speech-squelching-narcissistic-meglomaniac_20090612.html
Yeah, you liked that title, didn't you?
Alright, here's the deal: I've never been very fond of Chai Ling ever
since I learned about her back at Cal. For those who aren't familiar
with her, she was one of the student leaders of the Tiananmen Square
protests 20 years ago, elected as their "Supreme Commander" as it
were. Most people who hate her, probably hate her because of her
appearance on the award-winning documentary "The Gate of Heavenly
Peace" where she arguably came across as a sniveling self-centered,
power-hungry, emotional wreck quoted as secretly desiring bloodshed to
advance her ends:
`The students kept asking, "What should we do next? What can we
accomplish?" I feel so sad, because how can I tell them that what we
are actually hoping for is bloodshed, for the moment when the
government has no choice but to brazenly butcher us. Only when the
Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their
eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain this
to my fellow students? And what is truly sad is that some students,
and famous well-connected people, are working hard to help the
government, to prevent it from taking such measures. For the sake of
their selfish interests and their private dealings they are trying to
cause our movement to collapse and get us out of the Square before the
government becomes so desperate that it takes action.'
Well, bloodshed happened.
While there's no question that the government military is
predominantly culpable for the use of deadly force, there remains
significant controversy as to what degree student leaders like Chai
Ling may have intentionally kept more people in harm's way when the
prospect of harm was arguably obvious. Dying for a good cause is noble
and everything, but coming across as wishing harm upon your supporters
is a little distasteful. What the students and workers wanted was
laudable, but I'm not so keen about many of the things she did
throughout the demonstrations leading up to the bloody end and
thereafter.
She was kinda cute though.
http://cnreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/chailing-tiananmen-square-1989-2-320x240.jpg
So why am I writing about Chai Ling right now? Danwei kindly linked us
to a June 7th article by Yvonne Abraham in the Boston Globe. In it,
the writer blasts Chai Ling for using the American court system and
frivolous lawsuits to squelch the makers of the aforementioned
documentary, Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon. Actually, to be precise,
Chai Ling is using her successful and wealthy software company,
Jenzabar Inc. to sue the filmmakers' far less financially endowed
non-profit organization, Long Bow Films, with a case even the judge
cautions them as unlikely to win. So far, Chai Ling has burned up over
$70,000 of Long Bow's assets in legal fees just for the latter to
defend themselves against her persecution prosecution.
From the Boston Globe:
`Janzabar sued the filmmakers' company, Long Bow Films, for
defamation - just for directing readers to the articles Chai and
her company say are offensive and inaccurate. A Suffolk Superior
Court judge wisely threw the defamation charge out. The First
Amendment guarantees the people's right to say - and cite - even
things you don't like, after all.
But the case has dragged on because Jenzabar is also contending
that just by using the company's name as a tag on its website, Long
Bow is guilty of trademark infringement'
This issue was also reported by Evan Osnos in The New Yorker and Jane
Macartney in the Times, both earlier in May.
"Tag" apparently refers to a meta tag, a list of keywords hidden in
the HTML code of a webpage that is used to suggest to search engines
how to index that webpage. If you're not familiar with HTML or Search
Engine Optimization, don't worry, because in layman's terms, Chai
basically doesn't want anyone searching for Jenzabar to accidentally
wind up on The Long Bow Group's webpage and, you know, see all this
negative stuff about Chai Ling and Jenzabar.
Chai Ling maintains that "The Gate of Heavenly Peace" took her
comments out of context or translated them incorrectly (the quote at
the top of this post is the translation). Other student leaders have
written to the documentary-makers and have established a website
(blocked in China, naturally) defending her. It's difficult not to
suspect a conflict of interest when it comes between telling what
happened (and what was said/meant) and ensuring that your fans in the
West still think you were a great, peaceful, pro-democratic,
anti-communist, anti-oppression leader of idealistic self-sacrificing
students. Of course, that conflict of interest doesn't necessarily
mean they're engaging in revisionism, it just means we're reduced to a
he-said she-said hearsay sort of thing, with none of us really being
able to determine, with complete certainty, how "misquoted" she was.
Now that I've "defamed" Chai Ling, I do want to acknowledge the fact
that she isn't 100% evil. In fact, she's done many a good thing,
including making something of herself through education and hard
work. In mini-Gates and mini-Buffet fashion, she's even used the
wealth she's built up over the years to recently donate $1 million
dollars (Dr. Evil reference here) as a humanitarian effort to support
the advance of human rights and peaceful democracy in China. I'm all
for that.
That said, I'm still not very fond of what she said before, how she's
behaved with regards to the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, and what
she's doing now.
What do you think? Is Chai Ling a nauseating hypocrite, now seeking to
squelch others' freedom of speech when it says something bad about
herself? Or does she have a legal, lawful, or even moral (you know,
"moral imperatives" and all that) case?
---------------------------------------
The Fall of Lady Liberty and Chai Ling's Revenge
Sunday, June 14, 2009
http://insideoutchina.blogspot.com/2009/06/fall-of-lady-liberty-and-chai-lings.html
Years ago when I first saw the documentary "The Gate of Heavenly
Peace" at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, my impression of Chai Ling was
mixed. From what the former student leader said in her controversial
interview (available in both Chinese and English) with an American
journalist, it was certainly appalling that she expected the deaths of
many fellow students to serve the 1989 movement's purposes. On the
other hand, she looked genuinely grief-stricken by the prospect of
bloodshed, and I couldn't help but feel sympathy toward her as
well. After all, she was only 23 years old, a young woman who had
grown up in China's "revolutionary heroism" culture. In such a
culture, there's nothing out of place with what she expressed, that
only the blood of innocent people can awake and enlighten more
people. It is from a Western perspective that such an idea is simply
unacceptable.
What I'm saying is, more of the blame should be placed on the
revolutionary education she grew up with, rather than her naivety of
believing in it. Who was not once young and naive? I happen to also
think Wang Dan has a point that no matter what Chai Ling had said, she
did stay in the Square with other students until the last minute, and
her action was more important than her words. (For the record, "The
Gate of Heavenly Peace" also truthfully reported this fact.)
Reading excerpts of the newly published Tiananmen Moon (h/t The China
Beat) by Philip Cunningham, the very journalist who interviewed Chai
Ling 20 years ago, made me feel that Chai Ling might have been more
innocent than some have thought. Although her idea of using bloodshed
to arouse people was hardly a moral one, she appeared to be sincere
and serious about the student movement and was indignant toward some
other selfish power-thirsty student leaders. As such, I'd like to
believe the young Chai Ling twenty years ago was a humanly imperfect
idealist, as young activists are. If she sometimes took herself too
importantly, it was largely because of the situation: being young and
the leader of a mass movement can carry anyone away.
Today Chai Ling has become an American businesswoman. She is 43 years
old, certainly no longer naivetyve, and apparently has done well
financially. Now with the wealth she has gained in the democracy of
America, she starts a new fight, only this time her target is not a
totalitarian government but a critical part of democracy: an
independent, nonprofit film maker who dared to express criticism
toward both the Chinese government, and some student leaders, however
slight of the latter.
Whatever legal reasons Chai Ling has been deploying, "defamation" or
"infringing trademark," the drunkard's heart is not in the cup: the
real nature of Chai Ling's lawsuit against Long Bow the firm maker
seems more personal, as many internet articles have pointed out. From
a societal point of view, this lawsuit is a big regression in Chai
Ling's political ideal. From a personal point of view, her motivation
is explicable yet the action is totally unwise.
If it is excusable that Chai Ling didn't have a concrete idea of
democracy when she was leading that democracy movement two decades
ago, shouldn't one expect her to have gained a lot more understanding
now, after living in the West for all these years? Or so I'd thought.
It might be helpful to reflect here on a historical case that bears
some remarkable similarity: the so-called Times v. Sullivan case in
the 1960s, on which the Supreme Court's decision "revolutionized libel
law in America." Here's a description of the case from the US supreme
court media website:
"Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a
full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of
the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a
campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and
encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city
commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four
black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that
the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him
personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he
had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was
unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a
$500,000 judgment."
At the time, the NY Times was having financial problems, and being
charged with this astronomical amount of money put it in the danger of
bankruptcy. The paper appealed to the Supreme Court, and "the Court
believed it was important for the survival of democracy in the United
States that the press be allowed to aggressively report on public
matters without excessive fear of being sued for libel." [1] The
charge was dismissed. Because of the Supreme Court's wise decision,
today we still have the NY Times to read.
Note that this Court decision was made in 1964, and helped establish
the precedence to protect the press from similar liability lawsuits.
Now it is 45 years later. If Chai Ling had any idea about the meaning
of First Amendment, or the meaning of a free press, would she have
sued Long Bow? On the societal level, surely she doesn't wish American
democracy go backward to what it was before 1964? On the personal
level, did she ever worry about others' suspicions of her motives?
In any case, it is certainly another mistake Chai Ling is making,
hurting both others and herself, but this time it can no longer be
explained away by innocence. How on earth could a woman as smart as
she is think she could re-glorify her name through such a lawsuit?
From what I can see, Long Bow's on-line appeal has gained extensive
support from American academics, the English media, and internet
readers (including me), while the appeal written by Chai Ling's
ex-husband in her name collected a few signatures hardly reaching
beyond the circle of old comrades, some of whom managed to be vague.
For example Wang Juntao says in a straddle-the-fence way that he's
friends with both sides and he understands and supports both. Go
figure.
I wonder if Chai Ling really doesn't see the reality that, while she
has succeeded in financially hurting Long Bow, an accompanying
consequence is a further deterioration of her own name. And, does
anyone notice that her language against Long Bow sound awfully
familiar? In 1989, the then-government of China named the student
movement a "counter-revolutionary riot," one of the worst crimes at
the time. Of course, no one (except some soldiers) believed it. Now
Chai Ling calls Long Bow the Communist sympathizer, one of the most
hated names in America. Does she really think people with their own
eyes and minds would buy that accusation? As an example, this is how
the New Yorker commented:
"For the record, to anyone with knowledge of the film, the notion that
it is sympathetic to the Chinese government is laughable. But,
whatever happens with the suit, it's hard to imagine a more acute
measure of how far the student movement has faded into memory."
In this way Chai Ling not only does disservice to herself but also to
the overseas Chinese democracy movement, damage that her
million-dollar pledge won't repair.
But what makes a once brave democracy fighter sink so low as to use
the same means of propaganda she had suffered under to attack her foes
now? I'm really puzzled. This is the final stroke that manages to
erase whatever sympathy I had for her. In the end, her loss might be
bigger than Long Bow's. I'm not talking about money.
----------
[1] The Evolution of American Investigative Journalism by James L.Aucoin
Posted by Xujun Eberlein at 11:34 AM
19 comments:
Anonymous said...
The tape is important, but it was made by an amateur and should be
seen as such.
For even though Philip Cunningham cares not to correct people when
they give him the credit, he was not then nor has he ever been a
journalist. He was a student who used a HK crew and their video
camera (and someone else's tape recorder) to record an interview
with Ms. Chai. At the time of the taping, he was not employed by
anyone, but neither was he a freelance journalist.
Cunningham was hired and employed as a translator for BBC. He knew
some people who knew Chai and so that is how he got to talk and
tape her. Cunningham is identified frequently as a "journalist"
but he was neither accredited nor filed stories for any news
agency.
Chai's remarks are interesting but Cunningham clearly did not
understand what she was saying and was not interviewing her as a
journalist, only as someone who happened to have access through
other people. If you look at the tape, you will see that he does
not follow-up on her statement about "blood in the streets".
Indeed, Cunningham admits to have participated in one of the
marches and threw stones at soldiers and tanks that made the
assault--something that journalists do not do.
By the way, a careful reader will note that there are many
differences between what is in Cunningham's book and what appeared
on the web. The latter are advertised as excerpts but they are
not.
June 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM
. . .
pug ster said...
There's definately room for debate for Cunningham's role in the
6/4 incident as he as well as Chai Ling's role might not be so
innocent after all. Chai Ling spent alot of money in the LongBow
lawsuit but all she did is just dragging her name and her cause in
the 6/4 incident to the mud.
I think the main problem is that Westerners and Chinese don't see
eye to eye about politics, especially regarding 6/4 incident, and
Chai Ling trying to censor someone is seen as the cause, and not
the solution.
June 15, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Shane said...
"If it is excusable that Chai Ling didn't have a concrete idea of
democracy when she was leading that democracy movement two decades
ago"
Remarks like the above are quite popular in the West. How it is
possible to label a popular student rebellion as "pro-democracy"
movement when the few leading figures have no idea of what
democracy look like? It is still appall today to see these
students were allowed to engineer a server event that almost
turned China, a huge nation, upside-down in a short one-month
period of time.
In the end, it is the political zealot that drive some people to
throw their unconditioned support behind the event. The lack of
critical reasoning also undermines such very effort.
June 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM
. . .
pug ster said...
I don't see how Chai Ling and other dissidents represent an
average Chinese person when she, Wang Dan, Wu'er Kaixi and Li Lu
are Ivy League educated elites. If they want to see their cause as
righteous, they should reject Western Education ideals and fight
democracy as a grass roots campagain, and not from a western
educated and financed campagain. That's why she and the other
dissidents are not taken seriously.
June 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM
--------
Tiananmen Activist... Turned Entrepreneur... Turned User Of Trademark
To Stifle Free Speech
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=chai+ling
from the free-speech-for-me,-but-not-for-thee dept
Paul Alan Levy alerts us to yet another shameful case of someone
abusing trademark law to try to silence critics. In this case, it
involves the software company Jenzabar, which makes software for
colleges and universities, and apparently likes to play up the fact
that its founder and CEO, Ling Chai, was one of the "leaders" of the
Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989, before fleeing to America.
Apparently Chai likes to play up that connection for PR purposes, and
has been able to get the press to cover Jenzabar with headlines like
"From Tiananmen Leader to Netrepreneur" and "From Starting a
Revolution to Starting a Company.
However, when the makers of a documentary film about the uprising at
Tiananmen Square included some comments and links to articles that
were critical of Chai, she went legal. It started with a lawsuit
claiming defamation against the film makers, which got quickly tossed
out. So, instead, Chai and Jenzabar appear to be trying to use
trademark law to bankrupt the filmmakers. They've filed a trademark
lawsuit, claiming that the filmmakers' web page, that talks about Chia
and Jenzabar, violates its trademarks, noting that the page turns up
in search results on Jenzabar and the term is in the metatags.
Pretty much everyone involved recognizes that this is a ridiculous
abuse of trademark law to stifle free speech. There is no violation of
trademark here. Posting links to stories about Chai and Jenzabar that
are critical of her is not a trademark violation in any manner. Using
the term in metatags is totally meaningless. It's a shame that someone
who apparently once stood as a voice for freedom is now trying to
stifle free speech in others via trademark law abuse.
-----
Entrepreneurs
Great Story, Bad Business
Daniel Lyons, 02.17.03
http://www.forbes.com/work/free_forbes/2003/0217/114.html
Chai Ling has spent years trying to cash in on her heroism at
Tiananmen Square. But so far her Web company has brought in little
money and lots of lousy karma. Chai Ling would like total control
over her biography. In her version, she risks her life leading student
protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, escapes China stowed in a crate
and is twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Then she moves to
America and marries a millionaire venture capitalist who bankrolls her
promising Internet startup. Alas, the market crashes before the
company can go public, and it is unfairly besieged by lawsuits from
former executives, one of whom alleges that Chai and her husband have
misled investors and cheated the IRS.
"You're not going to write about that, are you?" Chai says, when asked
about the suits. "Do you really have to mention those things?" Chai's
seeming naivete' is a little out of character. She has frequently
scored points in the press by recalling her glory days as onetime
"commander-in-chief" of rebel students in Beijing.
Chai left China via Hong Kong in 1990 and arrived that year in the
U.S., where she enrolled at Princeton. In 1993, after earning a
master's degree in public affairs, she landed a job at Bain & Co., the
consultancy, and began dating one of the firm's partners, Robert
A. Maginn Jr. Chai received an M.B.A. from Harvard in 1998, the same
year she launched Cambridge, Mass.-based Jenzabar ("best and
brightest" in Mandarin) with angel funding from Maginn plus two heavy
hitters: Paul B. Fireman, the chairman of Reebok International (nyse:
RBK - news - people ), and Stephen Perlman, who cofounded WebTV and
sold it to Microsoft. Jenzabar's mission was to develop Internet-based
portals that college students could use to register for courses and
check homework assignments. By early 2000 a few colleges were testing
its software, but nobody was paying for it.
So Maginn, 46, and Chai, 36, who were engaged in 1997 and married in
2001, cooked up a new plan in which Jenzabar would gain customers by
acquiring them. In April 2000 Maginn quit his job at Bain and joined
Jenzabar, raising $40 million from investors, including his own New
Media Investors. Jenzabar bought four barely profitable companies that
made administrative software for colleges. Yoking them to Jenzabar's
portal, Chai reckoned she could offer a single vehicle to handle all
aspects of campus life.
As the market for Internet companies imploded, managers of the four
acquired outfits bickered over which products would survive. "We had a
lot of upheaval,"says Chai.
Nothing compared with what happened next. John Pierce, former owner of
one company, Cars Information Systems, sued Jenzabar, claiming it had
withheld part of his purchase price. (The dispute was settled in
arbitration, and Chai says the resolution went in Jenzabar's favor.)
Mahendran Jawaharlal, Cars' former president, sued, claiming Jenzabar
breached his separation agreement. Dwight Wyse and his son, Derek, who
owned yet another acquired company, Computer Management & Development
Services, alleged in a suit that Jenzabar had failed to repay them for
sums owed on promissory notes; their suit was in response to a
complaint by Jenzabar that claimed Dwight Wyse had leaked confidential
information to Jenzabar's rivals. Alan Frishman, former senior vice
president of operations at Jenzabar, sued, claiming the company had
denied him severance compensation after firing him in 2000. (The case
was settled last November.)
The most sensational charges come from Joseph DiLorenzo, Jenzabar's
former chief financial officer, who claims in a lawsuit that Chai and
Maginn fired him in March 2002 because he refused to assist them in
"certain unethical, inappropriate, and/or illegal actions."
DiLorenzo's complaint alleges Chai and Maginn misappropriated software
from other companies, set up sham partnerships, sent out inaccurate
press releases and earnings reports, and retroactively changed IRS
filings to escape personal tax liabilities. DiLorenzo's suit also
accuses Chai and Maginn of "self-dealing"and "commingling funds."
Chai says DiLorenzo's suit is without merit. DiLorenzo, she claims,
simply could not do his job and now is suing because he's bitter. She
says his allegations are just a ploy to shake a settlement out of the
company.
DiLorenzo won't discuss his complaint, and his lawyer would not
explain the allegations about "sham partnerships" because the case is
in the discovery process. Maginn says Jenzabar made its four-way
acquisition using subsidiaries, a routine strategy that keeps sellers
from getting nailed with the tax burden on illiquid Jenzabar shares;
by selling to a subsidiary, rather than to Jenzabar, sellers could
delay paying taxes on any gains.
The lawsuits are only part of the turmoil at Jenzabar. Last year it
sold off two companies it had recently acquired--Student-City.com, an
online travel agent that books spring-break trips for college kids,
and Progressive Solutions, which offers computer training. While
barely profitable, StudentCity added $26 million in sales, allowing
Jenzabar to boast in an August 2001 press release that its sales in
the first half of the year had grown 88% to $46.7 million. (Today, no
longer counting sales from those subsidiaries, Jenzabar says revenues
for the full year in 2001 were $42 million, growing to $50 million in
2002.) And then there's the hassle with a key investor, Pegasus
Capital Advisors, which in 2000 lent Jenzabar $25 million in the form
of convertible debt and now wants out, Maginn says. He and Chai have
tried--without luck--to find an investor to buy out Pegasus.
Where does this leave Jenzabar? Depends on whom you ask. "It's been a
little chaotic," says Chai. "But 2002 was our turnaround year. In 2003
we have our house in order and will start to grow and take market
share." Perhaps. But nabbing new clients isn't easy in the $2.7
billion market for higher-ed software, which is growing at only 2.7%
annually, reports IDC. It's especially tough given larger competitors
like SCT (nasdaq: SCTC - news - people ) (2002 fiscal sales: $238
million), whose educational software is used at half of all
U.S. colleges with more than 2,000 students, and PeopleSoft (nasdaq:
PSFT - news - people ), a $1.9 billion (sales) firm.
Maginn seems to see a different horizon. Recently he and Chai hired an
investment bank, a move that prompted rumors of a sale. "If a giant
company were to come along and make a great offer," he says, "we would
consider it." In 2000, Chai says, investment bankers told her that
Jenzabar could be worth $1 billion in a public offering. In those days
a good story could go a long way. Today it might get you just enough
money to pay off your debts.
-----
May 7, 2009
The American Dream: The Lawsuit
Posted by Evan Osnos
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2009/05/the-american-dream-the-lawsuit.html
Approaching the twentieth anniversary of the crackdown at Tiananmen
Square, on June 4th, the fate of those one-time student leaders never
ceases to amaze. I recently wrote about the campus radical turned
hedge-fund manager Li Lu, whose latest incarnation has been as a
financial advisor linking Warren Buffett to the Chinese
electric-battery producer, BYD, in the race to produce an electric
vehicle. Now comes word that Chai Ling, the student leader who
appeared on television screens around the world as the picture of
fragile, furious idealism, is now suing the makers of an award-winning
documentary about the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. "Gate of
Heavenly Peace," directed by the filmmakers Richard Gordon and Carma
Hinton, is considered, by China scholars, to be a major work on the
subject of the demonstrations. But it has been criticized by both the
Chinese government and student leaders, neither of which come out
looking especially good.
. . .
In article <2984002.FixmFllSN7@Dharma>,
lo yeeOn
Jun 2, 2013, 9:26:17 PM6/2/13
to
While the US State Department keeps bugging China about the Tiananmen
Square event of 1989 around this time every year, let's remember that
China's accounting of it has been vindicated by US diplomatic cables
reported by Wikileaks (see the UK Telegraph article below). And why
Square event of 1989 around this time every year, let's remember that
China's accounting of it has been vindicated by US diplomatic cables
are we not owning up to the massacres we have committed in Iraq (and
also Afghanistan and Pakistan), as reported by Bradley Manning and
others through Wikileaks?
As we are on the subject of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, 2)
below provides a glimpse into some of the larger-than-life actors at
the event.
The fact that the leaders of the protests were unyieldingly pushing
for a confrontation with the powers-that-be in Beijing - with the
blood of followers, who have not been apprised of the cost nor given
their consent, as the unspoken bargaining chip - plus the fact that
the law enforcement was forced to come up against "an elaborate system
of blockades" when they had to eventually restore order at some point
in time as the CIA's hundred dollar bills were indefinitely sustaining
the protesters at the huge square cannot help but give us a certain
perspective that must have been felt by the Chinese decision-makers,
such as Deng Xiaoping, at the time.
lo yeeOn
1) "Unmentioned but even more unmentionable"
100001110101110010101010010
Jun 19, 2013, 5:41:26 AM6/19/13
to
Yes
"~" wrote in message news:kofabt$fum$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
"~" wrote in message news:kofabt$fum$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
0 new messages