Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, has been known during his tenure to pull some fairly audacious moves: the continuation of a nuclear program in spite of widespread international condemnation, writing an unsolicited 18-page letter to President Bush that mainly highlighted his problems with the United States and convening a council to discuss the factuality of the Holocaust. In his latest move, Ahmadinejad has begun to seek out and remove professors whose views he deems to be too liberal or too secular from universities. While this current action may not be as reprehensible as a round-table discussion of the Holocaust's authenticity, its potential to influence the future of Iran is equally alarming.
By removing professors with viewpoints from which he dissents, Ahmadinejad is creating a system that would strengthen his position by weakening one of the strongest bastions of political opposition in Iran: the university system. By subverting the system and removing those opposed to Iranian policies, the university system would be poised to inculcate a singular viewpoint supportive of Islamic fundamentalism and Iranian national policy. This would also result in a decrease in public discourse relating to state policies and social matters, furthering a move toward fundamentalist support.
The resulting culture of myopia threatens to create a system that does not have the sufficient means or even liberty to question itself, or, when need be, substantiate adequate political opposition. A system of free flowing ideas is necessary to actualize change in Iran from a hard-line Islamic republic to a moderate country that can be counted on to cooperate with international policy. The university system has the ability to introduce differing viewpoints that might challenge Iran's future leaders to modify their views on various policies that they have been raised to support. Furthermore, it serves as a conduit for foreign culture — such as Western movies, music and other exported items that serve as examples of our soft power — introducing differing ways of life and culture.
Even though the situation in Iran is an egregious example of state intervention in an area in which government entanglements should be strictly regulated, the United States is not immune from such witch-hunts either. One UCLA alumnus started a group that was designed as a forum for students to complain about professors they believed to be too liberal. While the U.S. is not at the same risk level as Iran, it is equally important that the U.S. reaffirm its commitment to the freedom of academic expression. While professors like Kevin Barrett and Ward Churchill receive media attention and administrative scrutiny, it is important to realize the function that they serve — regardless of whether one agrees with their views or not — is important and essential for a university.
By allowing a nearly unadulterated flow of ideas in the classroom, academia and the student experience is strengthened in a way that polite restraint cannot match. While some ideas offered in the classroom may be offensive to some, it is not up to the state to shelter people from offense. Rather, the state should strive to foster an environment that propagates robust and dynamic discourse. In such an environment, students can be confronted by ideas that might, a priori, be construed as offensive. Yet such exposure serves as an important catalyst for analyzing one's own ideas and beliefs.
For college students especially — a moderately reasonable and mature group — a university should grant a modicum of trust to an individual's ability to respond to varying ideas and agree or dissent by their own accord. In conjunction with the lecturer's own freedom to express their views in an appropriate manner, the university system should encompass a variety of ideas in order to create a stronger learning environment and a more competitive student body.
Mike Skelly ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.
