Setting an Example

To the Editors of the Crimson:

Why should the Iranian students be singled out by official discriminatory legislation? If the conditions in Iran are such that the students can not or do not want to return, why should they be forced to leave? If many among them are no longer "officially" students, is it not because the conditions of their fellow citizens and relatives may be a difficult strain on them which could prevent them from continuing their studies? And why should they not become a loud political voice raised in concern over the conditions in their native land?

Discrimination against Iranians here disrupts the democratic process, the image of the United States, and the country's credibility on human rights. An enlightened attitude towards the Iranians would be a clear message to the whole world that this country's is united in the cause of human solidarity and rights. In practical terms, the psychological effect of a reaction of sympathy for the Iranians in this country would be a statement of understanding to the peoples in Iran. Furthermore, the students and ex-students here should be encouraged to continue their studies in the eventuality that one day they will return to their country to help in its reconstruction. For these reasons, the Iranians should be given opportunities to further their education, training, and schooling according to the most enlightened principles of the democratic process and of American education.

The problems of the Shah and the captives are to be dealt with in the same attitude of concern for justice based on an ethical humanitarianism. The citizens of the U.S.A. were seized illegally but to the Iranians, the U.S.A. had "seized" the Shah and is keeping him "under guard." It is necessary to understand the outlook of the persons with whom one wants to negotiate; for the Iranians it is a question of a simple exchange of prisoners. Again, the problem is not whether it was legal to seize the embassy personnel. The recognition that that was not legal is not now an issue; rather, it is concern for the lives of the captives which should inform our response.

This in itself would not be a justification to exchange an innocent person for the captives, but the case is that there is a large voice claiming that the Shah should be tried according to international norms of jurisprudence. For the sake of the embassy personnel and in the interest of international law, research should be undertaken immediately to study the possibility of recognizing the legitimacy of the Iranian people's claim for a trial, and eventually the possibility of conducting a trial on neutral territory. Geneva, for instance, has the facilities for such a procedure and there the Shah would be able to get the kind of medical help his doctors would insist on. The possibility of putting on trial even a head of state would also, in the long run, be a sound legal policy which could make despotism less attractive and be a means of preventing extreme situations of this sort.

Another point needs to be made. The media cartoonists should beware of covertly compounding the problem by offending religious or racial sensitivities. The Boston Globe recently carried a cartoon of a Muslim at prayer thinking "kill." Extra-careful precautions should be taken not to offend the Iranian people's religious sensitivities, nor to arouse any prejudices on the part of the people of the U.S.A., for the scars of this whole incident would take a long time to heal and would take the human rights movement back a long way. If Islamic practices are ridiculed it could create a deleterious reaction on the part of the world's seven hundred million Muslims and the "white devil" myth and its association with colonialism could surface to complicate the problem even more.

As for the immediate situation, the U.S.A. is partially responsible and should dialogue in the interests of everyone concerned without creating additional victimization of the innocent. Georges Thierry de Dreyer, MTS   The Divinty School