March 11, 2022
OPINIONS Established 1874
LETTER TO THE EDITORS Anti-Mahallati Protests Lack Context My thanks to the Review for its most recent story about the controversy involving Professor of Religion Mohammad Jafar Mahallati, as reported by Managing Editor Gigi Ewing (“Continued College Inaction Provokes Second Demonstration Against Mahallati,” The Oberlin Review, March 4, 2022). As the story noted, I have done extensive research on the controversy. I would like to emphasize some additional points that I think the Oberlin community should think about in considering the issues involved. In general, there is no statute of limitations on human rights violations of the kinds involved in the 1988 state-sanctioned executions in Iran. Anyone who participated in — or supported either directly or indirectly — those human rights violations can still be and should be held to account. That should be done according to fair judicial proceedings or investigations that weigh evidence in an objective manner. A key question in this is whether Professor Mahallati had direct knowledge of the executions at the time he made various statements before the U.N. that questioned reports originating with Amnesty International. So far, I have found no evidence that he would have had either direct or indirect knowledge of the executions from sources inside Iran. The executions were carried out in extreme secrecy. They did not become public knowledge in Iran until shortly after Mahallati was dismissed from his position as the U.N. ambassador to Iran. It is well-documented that Mahallati played a key role in gaining Iran’s acceptance of the U.N. resolution that ended the Iran-Iraq war. He did that despite significant opposition from inside Iran to his efforts. His arrest and imprisonment in Iran after he was dismissed from his U.N. position are indicative of the risks he took to bring an end to a war that by best estimates killed 500,000 people on each side and produced in excess of 1,000,000 casualties. The issues involved in this controversy are complex. My research into these issues is ongoing, and there are several questions I am still examining. As a result of conversations with an Oberlin alum, I have written a 5000-word assessment of the controversy that I have labeled “tentative.” It covers not only questions involving former U.N. Ambassador Mahallati, but also concerns I have regarding the actions of the protest group and its allies. Ray English Director of Libraries Emeritus, Oberlin College SUBMISSIONS POLICY
The Editorial Board encourgages anyone interested in submitting an Opinions piece to email the Opinions editors at opinions@oberlinreview.org to request a copy of the Opinions primer. Opinions expressed in editorials, letters, op-eds, columns, cartoons, and other Opinions pieces do not necessarily reflect those of The Oberlin Review staff. Submission of content to the Review constitutes an understanding of this publication policy. Any content published by The Oberlin Review forever becomes the property of The Oberlin Review and its administrators. Content creators retain rights to their content upon publication, but the Review reserves the right to republish and/or refuse to alter or remove any content published by the Review. It is up to Senior Staff’s discretion whether to alter content that has already been published. The Oberlin Review appreciates and welcomes letters to the editors and oped submissions. All submissions are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. All submissions must be received by Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. in the Opinions email for inclusion in that week’s issue. Full-length pieces should be between 600 and 900 words; letters to the editor should be less than 600 words. All submissions must include contact information, with full names and any relevant titles, for all signatories; we do not publish pieces anonymously. All letters from multiple writers should be carbon-copied to all signatories to confirm authorship. The Review reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity, length, grammar, accuracy, and strength of argument, and in consultation with Review style. Editors work to preserve the voice of the writers and will clear any major edits with authors prior to publication. Headlines are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. The Review will not print advertisements on its Opinions pages. The Review defines an advertisement as any submission that has the main intent of bringing direct monetary gain to a contributor or otherwise promoting an event, organization, or other entity to which the author has direct ties.
The Oberlin Review | March 11, 2022
Volume 151, Number 14
Editorial Board Editors-in-Chief
Anisa Curry Vietze
Kushagra Kar
Managing Editor Gigi Ewing
Opinions Editors
Angel Aduwo
Emma Benardete
Affirmative Action Must Be Upheld
Photo courtesy of KCRG
On Jan. 24, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear a challenge to affirmative action with regard to two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. These cases could determine the fate of affirmative action not only at these two institutions, but across the nation, especially considering the Supreme Court’s current conservative supermajority. The reemergence of debate around the constitutionality of affirmative action raises the question: why is the practice still necessary for ensuring students of color have access to higher education? Moreover, these cases gives us the opportunity to reframe how we think about not only affirmative action, but also about the continuing, broader issue of diversity — or lack thereof — in higher education. A common and intensely bigoted misconception is that affirmative action allows underqualified students of color to get into prestigious institutions on the basis of their race alone. This belief, while obviously untrue, also discredits the accomplishments of students of color and perpetuates the harmful notion that being a person of color gives you an easier chance at getting into universities. In reality, affirmative action simply seeks to give traditionally disadvantaged students a more equitable opportunity at accessing higher education. Another common misconception is that affirmative action involves a quota for a certain number of people of a certain racial group to be accepted. In reality, the 1978 Supreme Court decision deemed a quota-based system unconstitutional. Affirmative action isn’t a single concept or policy. It can take the form of outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, and employee and management development. Its implementation can vary greatly depending on the institution or company. Considering the benefits of affirmative action and the history of white supremacy in higher education, it is essential that we campaign for affirmative action to remain firmly within our legal framework. For most of history, colleges and universities were composed almost entirely of white men. Many schools like UNC did not accept any students of color until they were mandated to by the Supreme Court decision on Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. There were schools like Harvard and Oberlin, that did accept students of color — albeit in small numbers — prior to the overturn of segregation. Affirmative action works to combat the legacy of white supremacy by making admission into elite, historically white institutions more accessible to people of color who have grown up facing systemic barriers. We do not need less affirmative action. If anything, we need more, especially here at Oberlin. Despite being one of the first colleges in the country to start accepting Black students back in 1835, Oberlin today falls short in terms of its Black student population. Currently only 5 percent of Oberlin students are Black, compared to an average of 15 percent across U.S. baccalaureate institutions. Outlawing affirmative action would likely further diminish the small proportion of Black and Brown students at small, elite liberal arts colleges like Oberlin. In the event that affirmative action is found to be unconstitutional, Oberlin, and all colleges, must take steps to recruit Black students and provide adequate aid to those who apply. Adopting a need-blind admissions process, which Oberlin currently does not employ, would help counteract the effects of affirmative action being gutted by allowing the College to accept more low-income and Black students. Overturning affirmative action would leave colleges — even private colleges like Oberlin — with their hands tied, limiting options to cultivate the type of equitable community we want on our campus. If the Supreme Court decides that affirmative action is unconstitutional, Oberlin and other schools like it must institute other policies to protect the Black and Brown students already on campus. Editorials are the responsibility of the Review Editorial Board — the Editors-in-Chief, Managing Editor, and Opinions Editors — and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the Review.
5
