DURING the meeting held in Jeddah on Tuesday to prepare for the Fifth National Dialogue Forum entitled “Us and the Others,” several things grabbed my attention. They were all points that raised a number of questions which urgently demand answers. First of all, a quick check of the participants shows that out of the 32 men, 24 have PhDs; 15 of the 24 are academics and 5 of the academics are — or were — rectors of Saudi universities. As for the women, out of 32, 27 are academics and 9 of the 27 are deans or vice deans of faculties.
Now there are eight universities in the Kingdom, serving both males and females, tens of colleges and hundreds of institutes. How many of this large number of educational institutions, I wonder, have applied methods of dialogue within their own organizations? Which of them has a student union, a students’ club or an alumni association?
Forty-two academics — 14 of them in major roles in their institutions — have not begun a dialogue in their institutions and yet they want to teach the country how to have a proper dialogue.
Let us be honest with ourselves for once, shouldn’t we give our generation trust in the system? How can someone convince me that 42 academics — who apparently do not approve of dialogue — are going to teach the younger generation how to have a dialogue with the other?
Let’s take an example. Give me one clear rule in any university that will assure the students’ rights? Let’s be realistic; in our universities, a professor has full authority to fail a student, kick him/her out of class and give him/her any mark depending on the mood.
An “A” student can get an “F” if the professor does not like him. Another question — can any one recall an incident in which a student made a complaint against a professor and got satisfaction? Mind you, I’m not talking about “wasta”; I mean real dialogue as when a student demands his or her rights, raising the issue with the dean of student affairs and getting satisfaction.
Now here is the scenario; if the student has — as the Saudis say — a “strong back” which means he knows someone influential who will back him or her up when he files a complaint — he or she must provide documentary support for his complaint. In that case, the university sets up a committee to investigate the matter. If the accused professor has a friend on the committee — which is always the case — then the student can forget about his or her rights. Now a question: Where is the dialogue that the 42 academics at the “Dialogue Forum” are calling for? It is a fact that many of the participants at the forum were there just to voice any number of theories that they do not apply in real life.
Some, of course were reciting great tales of how — with the great talent for dialogue they have — they managed to convince their American colleagues during their studies abroad of whatever they believed in at the time.
I really wanted to grab a microphone and ask those people what they had done with that great talent? I — as well as a number of the other participants, I’m sure — were not interested in the great experiences of those who emerged victorious from a dialogue with their American colleagues. In fact, I wonder why they didn’t learn from their American colleagues how to listen to the other’s viewpoints and opinions? Why didn’t they learn from their great experience how to listen and respect the other?
Saudi students abroad have a Saudi students’ club in almost every city in the West. They enjoy many rights there. The clubs have a president who talks to the university administration, the Saudi educational attaché and the embassy — all without fear of being expelled from the institution they are studying in. They nominate one student to represent them all in the country they are in.
Most of them are members of the student unions of their universities and have made great use of them. A number of them have exercised their rights in various disputes and gained satisfaction. I would like to ask them why they haven’t bothered to pass the same experience to their fellows in Saudi Arabia and, by extension, to today’s younger generation? We all know that students are the future leaders of the country. Shouldn’t we involve them in real dialogue as soon as possible?
Glimpsed at the Meeting:
— I was shocked to see a well-known businessman leaving in frustration, claiming he had not been given enough time to speak. The fact is that he had been given 7 minutes while others were only allotted three minutes.
— I don’t know why one participant used a French expression that means everything is all right. The dialogue was in Arabic and was being held in Saudi Arabia. The participants were all Saudis who are fluent in Arabic. Maybe he thought the expression wouldn’t be understood in Arabic and so he chose to use French.
— Why do medical conferences, exhibitions, managerial seminars and even some courses have mixed seating? This was, after all, a meeting to prepare a “National Dialogue” in which we want to “understand” the other. How is this being accomplished if seating is separate, divided by brick walls and the women are only heard when we hear their voices electronically?
