Peking University recently announced that it will deny entry to tour groups of primary school pupils and adult tourists, but will continue to allow groups of middle school students to visit. In addition, the university's doors will remain open to individual visitors.

The decision sparked heated public debate. Opponents claimed that the university has no right to shut its campus to the public because, "as a public institution built with taxpayers' money, it should be open to the public." Supporters argued that a "university campus is not a public park and the normal order of teaching should not be disturbed."

Both arguments are reasonable, but neither properly addresses the issue.

The crux of the problem is not whether the university should be open to the public, but what is the most appropriate way for it to receive visitors. Peking University is not trying to turn away all visitors. It is merely setting some restrictions on the number of certain types of visitors.

It is not wrong to claim that a public institution financed by the nation's taxpayers should be open to the public. But those who made this argument did so in order to criticize Peking University's decision to shut its campus to part of the tourism industry. Their argument is illogical. The openness of a public institution does not mean unrestricted access to all of its facilities.

Some people cited famous universities in Western countries, such as Oxford and Harvard, as examples of opening to visitors. Such a simple comparison does not hold water either. The reality in these schools may not be exactly what they imagined.

I have never visited Oxford and had only a very scant impression of Harvard from a brief visit. But I once visited the University of California at Berkeley, another world-renowned university. The beautiful campus attracted many tourists, but there were signs reminding visitors to keep quiet and take good care of the environment. Some areas were cordoned off to prevent unauthorized entry. All the tourists behaved carefully in order not to disturb the tranquillity of the campus or leave any litter.

I also visited Peking University and Tsinghua University, the two most prestigious schools of higher learning in China, during the summer holiday. I saw hordes of tourists ushered by quacking guides along nearly every path in the campus. Plastic bags, cans and paper cups could be seen at the roadside, in the pond or under trees.

It is understandable that parents want to let their kids get some sense of the academic atmosphere in the nation's top universities in the hope of encouraging them to study hard. However, China has only one Peking University and one Tsinghua University, but it has 200 million primary and middle school students. Even a very tiny fraction of that number (plus their parents) would constitute a mammoth army of visitors. In fact, Peking and Tsinghua each currently receive 10,000 tourists every day, many of whom are just ordinary tourists.

We Chinese have developed a particular liking for tourism in recent years. But the nation's famous sites are simply being swamped by the massive number of visitors trooping through them. Anyone who sees this scene will think of the old Chinese saying: "youren ru chao" (tourists surge along like tides) or "youren ru zhi" (tourists stand as densely as thickly woven rugs). The damages thus caused to the tourist attractions are undeniable.

Therefore, it is easy to imagine what consequences would be suffered if Peking and Tsinghua did not take any measure to limit the number of visitors. Moreover, it is unfair for the universities to suffer from havoc wreaked by some adult tourists brought in by profit-seeking tourism agencies. I believe even Oxford and Harvard universities would impose certain restrictions on the number of visitors if they face the same situation. So, please show some understanding about Peking University's recent decision.

Meanwhile, Peking University should realize that its decision to allow middle school students to visit but deny access to primary school pupils is absurd. The number of visitors can be limited, but discrimination is unfounded.

It also needs to improve its management of young visitors and their parents. It can mobilize its own students to act as volunteer guides for the kids. These knowledgeable and youthful students will definitely be friendly to their younger brothers and sisters and thus have a better influence on them than the money-hungry, garrulous tourist guides.

Email: liushinan@chinadaily.com.cn