The International Conference on Cultural Exchange, held annually in Geneva, Switzerland, is renowned for bringing together scholars and diplomats from diverse backgrounds. This year's conference, however, was marred by an incident highlighting the persistent challenge of overcoming ingrained prejudice. Professor Anya Sharma, a leading anthropologist from India, delivered a compelling presentation on the intricacies of cross-cultural communication. Her talk focused on the importance of empathy and understanding in fostering meaningful dialogue between different cultural groups. She emphasized the need to move beyond superficial interactions and engage with the nuances of diverse cultural expressions. However, during the Q&A session, a delegate from a Western European nation, Mr. Klaus Richter, posed a question that was perceived by many as insensitive and racially charged. He questioned the validity of Professor Sharma's research, implying that her cultural perspective was inherently biased and limited in its applicability to a global audience. His comments sparked outrage among attendees, many of whom felt his remarks were rooted in deeply ingrained prejudices. The incident triggered a heated debate about the role of cultural sensitivity in international collaborations. Some argued that Mr. Richter's comments, while offensive, represented a genuine concern about methodological rigor. Others insisted that his remarks revealed a deeply-rooted bias against non-Western perspectives. The conference organizers were forced to intervene, issuing a statement condemning Mr. Richter's remarks and reaffirming the conference's commitment to inclusivity and respectful dialogue. The subsequent discussions reflected a broad range of opinions on how to address the pervasive nature of implicit biases within academic and international contexts. Many highlighted the urgent need for enhanced cultural awareness training and emphasized the importance of fostering critical self-reflection among participants to mitigate unconscious prejudices. The incident served as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle to create truly inclusive spaces for intercultural exchange, even within the supposedly enlightened environment of an international conference.
1. What was the main point of Professor Sharma’s presentation?
2. How did Mr. Richter's question affect the conference?
3. What was the primary outcome of the incident involving Mr. Richter?
4. What is the author's overall perspective on the incident?
5. Which of the following best summarizes the central theme of the passage?