My first day as a student at Thammasat University was quite endearing and full of eerie memory. Walking in the university for the first time, I saw more than just buildings. I was struck by the famous funny-shaped Dome Building and the size of the campus that is far too small for its own legendary fame. For me, almost every inch in the varsity has been shaped by memories of the October massacres in the 1970s.
I looked for traces of bulletholes in the wall, as I was told by books on the October massacre that buildings in the Faculty of Commerce had evidence of such, as did those of the Faculty of Journalism and Media, as well as other buildings. The main soccer field was where students were forced to remove their shirts and lay on the ground while soldiers were pointing guns at them. Apart from my fanciful gory imagination, I always think of "almost every inch" of the university as a space of freedom with students holding activities, protesting and handling out leaflets.
Like many students, I was lured by the spirit of Thammasat _ images of liberal thinking, freedom and political ideology _ the epitome of free spirit. And if there is one thing that I am proud of this varsity, it will be the sense of respect for different opinions and freedom of speech and expression this university subtly sows in its students.
As a teenager coming from a very strict school, Thammasat University was truly the place which allowed youngsters like myself to be who we are _ politically active, a laggard, loud voiced, an ignoramus, liberal or even square-head conservative.
The spirit of Thammasat was tested earlier this week when rector Somkid Lertpaitoon announced the executive committee's decision to rescind the permit for the Nitirat _ a group of law professors _ to use the university's premises to carry on its campaign to revise article 112, the law governing the lese majeste charge.
On his Facebook page, the rector explained that the Nitirat movement could provoke another October massacre and he could not risk it.
Then, the university that was deeply divided seemed to fall apart like never before. Some groups of lecturers and professors _many of whom were present during the October massacres in the 1970s, lamented the rector for kowtowing to establishment and killing the spirit of Thammasat.
Various alumni groups came with their own opinions. The 2501 Law Students Alumni condemned the Nitirat group. A group of alumnus of the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication launched an anti-Nitirat club, while current students and alumni viewed with grave concern that the ban imposing Nitirat's campaign activity will open the door for more censuring.
Even the quiet Apinan Buahapakdi, the student who was arrested on a lese majeste charge during the Oct 6, 1976 events, wrote a letter protesting against the university's decision.
Personally, I have deep sympathy for the rector as he has to make a tough decision that will never make anyone happy. Ajarn Somkid recently did the praiseworthy thing in supporting "Karn Thoop", the red-shirt youth, to study in the university after she was rejected by other universities. For me, it would be easier for Ajarn Somkid to let the Nitirat group continue with their agenda. That would send the right message that the university is mature enough to rise above political division and ideological difference.
For me, a real democratic society is measured by diversity and the level of tolerance and respect given to what we dislike, not how better we can unite and control.
But the world is not easy as it looks. Freedom of expression is more than letting anyone speak their mind. The political context that underlines freedom of expression during the time when statesman Pridi Bhanomyong founded the varsity more than 70 years ago, was not identical to the one during the 1970s when two bloody October massacres took place, nor the 1992 May Massacre and definitely not the current 2005 coup.
In old days, political conflicts and dilemmas were less complex _ people against dictator, people against junta, democracy against communism. Now, our dilemma is too complex, people turn against people and now they have more choices to choose or turn against a) Thaksinomy, b) non-Thaksinomy with angry red shirt, c) our democracy as usual with our politicians as usual, d) another coup.
And how about our ability to listen and open up to different opinions. When we shout the noble words such as freedom of expression, can we really listen to others without being judgemental? For me, it is so hard not to be judgemental, but much more harder to know and admit that we are just another judgemental person.
Perhaps, it is the time for rector Somkid to open our scanty "Hor Yai" (Main Conference Hall) for public debate on democratic space in the university.
The event must not be monopolised by those hot-headed ideologists, ultra left and right wings or hyper-royalists who try to manipulate the space of the university to fit its own agenda. The public should be welcomed and the event should be broadcast.
Content should be larger than whether or not Enligthened Jurists _ the rather bemusing official name of the Nitirat group in English, which makes me think of the titles of John Grisham's courtroom thriller paperbacks _ can continue using the university's space to fight for the revision of article 112, the lese majeste law.
It is time for the university's executive committee and the embattled rector to let society also determine what is freedom of expression and what the spirit of Thammasat should smell like.
Anchalee Kongrut is a feature writer for the Bangkok Post.