Professor Mahallati Should Condemn ’88 Iran Massacres

OPINIONSOPINIONS

September 23, 2022 Established 1874 Volume 152, Number 3

LETTER TO THE EDITORS

Professor Mahallati Should Condemn ’88 Iran Massacres

Editor’s note: Segments of this piece are reprinted from the author’s book review, “Nasser Mohajer, Voices of a Massacre: Untold Stories of Life and Death in Iran, 1988,” published on Oct. 27, 2020 in the Center for Human Rights in Iran.

The author served as the Islamic Republic of Iran’s first ambassador to the United Nations between 1979-80.

The clerics who run the authoritarian theocracy in Iran represent one of the predominant anti-Enlightenment regimes of the modern world. That is to say they seemingly reject the very idea of human rights and demand that citizens follow duties and obligations dictated by the self-appointed “viceroys of God” on earth. The hostility of these characters toward gender equality has a certain barbarity in common with what Margaret Atwood describes in The Handmaid’s Tale. When supporters or representatives of Iran’s theocracy face Western audiences, they become sophists in answering questions or rationalizing their position.

An example of such behavior is illustrated in a recent Voice of America Persian News Network interview with the former Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Oberlin College Professor Mohammad Jafar Mahallati. The interviewer, Masih Alinejad, asked Mahallati about his response to the 1988 execution of an estimated 5,000 political prisoners in Iran, pointing out Mahallati’s position in the U.N. at the time of the massacre. Mahallati said he did not know about the executions — an unprecedented tragedy in Iranian history. Then, Alinejad asked Mahallati what he thought about the massacre now that he knew about it, to which Mahallati replied, “I strongly believe that killing one person is equal to killing the entire world.”

This absurd and demagogic answer to a specific question reveals the shameless hypocrisy of Mahallati. Has there ever been a despot who admits to killing innocent people? All dictators consider their critics or opponents guilty. Mahallati, as an agent of Iran’s totalitarian theocracy, implicitly follows the same rule but uses the preposterous words quoted above to hide his position.

Mahallati denies knowing about the massacre when it happened. He maintains that “One is responsible based on the information they are aware of.” This is another example of his sophistry. The truth is that, shortly after the Iranian state started its criminal acts, Amnesty International and several news organizations, including the Associated Press, reported the crimes. The information was out there; Mahallati chose to continue the regime’s cover-up.

In 1988, then Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a secret fatwa (a religious edict) ordering judicial authorities to execute political prisoners, resulting in between 4,500 and 5,000 killings. The inmates were men and women, young and old, who had been arrested over the previous 10 years for writing, speaking, or demonstrating against the regime. Some of them were teenagers at the time of their arrest. A tribunal that came to be known as the death commission carried out the order within three months. Bodies of the victims were buried in mass graves, and their families were kept in the dark for the following three months.

Since then, international human rights organizations have documented the massacre and described it as a crime against humanity. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have thoroughly documented See Voices, Page 6

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 op-ed submissions. All submissions are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. All submissions must be received by Wednesday at 4 p.m. in the Opinions email for inclusion in that week’s issue. Full-length pieces should be between 800 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.

EdItOrIal BOard

EdItOrS-IN-ChIEf Kushagra Kar Emma Benardete

MaNagINg EdItOr Lauren Krainess

OPINIONS EdItOrS Elle Giannandrea Emily Vaughan

Activism on Campus Must Be Revitalized

Oberlin has a national and historical reputation for its politically active student body and campus that is constantly abuzz with activism and protests. We have noticed, however, that besides a few gatherings in Tappan Square with chanting and posters, there have been few, if any, sustained protests or movements since the College shut down due to COVID-19 in March 2020. Observed from a distance, the trend of protests growing fewer and farther between reveals a disconcerting pattern in the spirit of activism on campus.

Last fall, Nancy Schrom Dye Chair of Middle East and North African Studies Mohammad Jafar Mahallati was investigated by the College for alleged war crimes during his time as Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in the late 1980s. When the College finished its investigation into his alleged wrongdoing and concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated, an activist group mostly consisting of members from outside the Oberlin community took to Tappan Square to express their discontent with this decision. Considering that the protest was organized by people outside Oberlin, College students needed only to educate themselves and show up. Still, very few students participated in these protests, despite the severity of the allegations and numerous disputes to the College’s investigations. The same activist group held two more protests against Mahallati — one in March and one over Commencement Weekend in June — both of which drew limited student involvement. In addition to the virtual absence of students from protests, there was scant, if any, conversation among students about the allegations against Mahallati during this period, and little conversation has occurred since. A prior Editorial Board commented on this lack of student engagement in “Evidence Against Mahallati Irrefutable,” The Oberlin Review, Nov. 5, 2021.

In the past year, we have continued to witness the lack of a campus response in the face of other massively consequential issues that directly affect students, contradicting Oberlin’s rich history of student activism. Thus far, there has been little organized activism against the College’s decision to contract with Harness Health Partners, despite HHP’s recent announcement that it will not provide students with certain essential reproductive and gender-affirming services. Many students will tell you that they are upset even though the College has since contracted with a new provider for reproductive and gender-affirming services. In our conversations with peers, we have heard lamentations about the injustice of HHP’s change in position; many believe that the College supporting a Catholic health provider is problematic regardless of the quality of care they expected.

This widespread anger and concern, however, has yet to bring anything larger to fruition. There have been few public statements or actions from students on the situation, despite the fact that this change has deeply shaken and infuriated the student body. There have been no protests against HHP for going back on its agreement with the College, and even more surprisingly, there have not been any fliers or posters condemning HHP or the College distributed around campus.

When Ohio legislators introduced HB 454, a bill that required school officials to out transgender students to their parents and prohibited public funds from being given to organizations that provide gender-affirming care to minors, campus discourse was once again scarce. When the bill passed, there was no largescale response, save for people posting infographics on their Instagram stories about the bill and the damage it would cause. While this practice does educate viewers who are unaware of the issues at hand, it is hollow in the absence of continued action. Hosting information sessions, posting fliers around campus, and organizing in protest are just some of a variety of approaches we could have taken to gather momentum against this intrusive and problematic bill. Each of these actions produces media attention and demonstrates support that adds to the broader symposium of voices fighting against injustice.

The Review inherently plays the role of disseminating information on campus ,while also creating a platform for members of our community to comment and educate each other on the goings-on around campus. In the past year, the Editorial Board has repeatedly used this column to comment on issues such as faculty pay, abortion restrictions, and the College’s failure to recognize its problematic history, but we also understand that there is more that every individual on this Editorial Board can do to promote positive change. We, along with the rest of the student body, must hold ourselves accountable and work with one another to revitalize campus activism. Actions speak louder than words, and in the past few years, Oberlin students have whispered at best.