Harvard Must End Its Involvement In Iran

The announcement last week that Harvard has signed a new $425,000 contract with the government of Iran to formulate a "Master Plan" for the proposed 500-student Reza Shah Kabir graduate research facility came as a surprise to no one. Harvard has now been involved in the Iranian project for a year and a half, and the continuation of the undertaking into this next stage represents a show of confidence on the part of the Iranian government--that Harvard, for the right price, will do the bidding of even the most totalitarian regime. Harvard acknowledges the totalitarian nature of the Iranian regime, but claims its lengthy road show in Iran can only serve to "open up" the country.

Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi assumed power in Iran in 1953 after a coup sponsored by the CIA; since then, Iran has been run as a virtual police state, and its educational system has come under increasing control by the repressive regime. Curriculum is strictly controlled by the state, and professors who express views opposing those of the regime are tortured until they recant. The Shah is friendly with the United States, however; apparently that's all Harvard has cared about since it began its $1.5 million involvement in Iran in 1974.

All signs point to a continued idyllic relationship between Harvard and Iran. But there is no sign that the Iranian system of education has "opened up" at all despite Harvard's presence for more than a year. Iran is, and will continue to be, a closed and repressive totalitarian state. There is no evidence that the proposed facility will be founded on education principles any "higher" than those already observed in the state-dominated educational system. The presence of Edward L. Keenan Jr., professor of History, and a select minority of American educators on the governing board will make state meddling in the affairs of the school--which is bound to occur--all the more embarrassing.

Harvard has cleverly and opportunistically brushed aside the myriad ideological differences which exist between many members of the Harvard community and the Iranian government and has justified its potentially embarrassing venture as a step in the direction of enlightenment in a country drastically in need of openness.

What the University fails to realize is that it tacitly supports the methods of the new regime by building the new university that its willingness to obey the Iranian government may presage a time when the administrators and governors of the new institution, however seemingly enlightened, are forced to do the same.

The dispatching of Harvard administrators and employees to Iran in a gesture of dubious international goodwill also means that their services are lost to the community in which they are supposed to be working. It is not immediately apparent why Harvard should be called upon to design the sewage system of a new school in the middle of the Iranian woods; it seems there are equally pressing concerns on the Harvard campus which might more fruitfully occupy the time of the University's planners.

The exaltation which such a project generates among Harvard administrators, who see the University fulfilling a noble missionary objective, is not shared by the more enlightened element of the Harvard community, which sees in the Iranian expedition the acknowledgement of the objectives of the Iranian government and at least tacit support for the continuance of a regime dedicated to manipulating the minds of its people.

Repression, and the dubious educational objectives fostered by the Iranian government, can be just as pernicious when carried out in shiny new buildings with modern sewage facilities. Harvard's involvement in Iran should end.