AMHERST, MA - SEPTEMBER 17: Students on the campus of UMass Amherst. (Photo by Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images) | Boston Globe via Getty Images[/caption]This past week, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst made a course correction that puts it back on track with its mission to educate. At issue was a short-lived ban on the admission of Iranian students to certain engineering and science programs.
UMass officials initially claimed that they feared running afoul of federal sanctions, but changed direction after consulting with both the State Department and attorneys. The fact that the ban was even considered in the first place, however, demonstrates a corollary to the old "every action creates an equal and opposite reaction": radical behavior in one direction can prompt a proportionate, and equally misguided, reaction in the opposite direction.
The decision to bar Iranian students from chemical, computer and mechanical engineering studies was based on an interpretation of United States economic sanctions that have been in place since 2012. These restrictions were put in place as part of an effort to pressure Iran into dismantling its fledgling nuclear program. Iran asserts that it is developing nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes, but many international political leaders have their doubts.
While such sanctions are arguably valuable as part of an effort to isolate Iran and drive it to the negotiating table, it seems unlikely that banning international students from specific academic programs was ever considered when the regulations were drawn up. In fact, a State Department official said that not only does the law not ban Iranian students from coming to the United States to study these subjects, it was odd that UMass, if it had been so concerned about potentially violating these sanctions, waited three years to act on it.
UMass officials may have been forgiven for a bit of zealotry if there were a nationwide drive, however irrational, toward such prohibitions, yet this does not seem to be the case. In fact, the president of the Institute of International Education in New York was quoted as saying that it is rare for a school to ban students based on economic sanctions.
In what may be considered a testament to the open and academically affirming environment the university has created, its students and faculty did not sit idly by and let the ban stand unchallenged. More than 100 participated in a school forum protesting the move. UMass officials apparently took the criticism to heart and acted quickly to retract the regulations.
Many in both the United States and the Middle East are justifiably alarmed at Irans nuclear ambitions. With the chaos engulfing the neighboring countries of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, Iran already holds a disproportionate level of leverage and influence in a region that is hardly synonymous with stability. The prospect of Iran possessing nuclear weapons should be enough to frighten us into doing all that we can to prevent such an eventuality. Which is why Secretary of State John Kerry is working on an almost daily basis to work out a nuclear accord with Iran.
The fact that we live in a dangerous world, however, should not prompt a radicalization of the very institutions that may offer the best hope of countering such dangers. Responding to violence, or even the threat of violence, with knee-jerk behavior sends exactly the message we should be avoiding.
Better to welcome Irans brightest and most ambitious students and provide them with not only highly technical skills, but also a more global perspective of what Iran is, as well as what it could be ... not to mention, how welcoming and accommodating the U.S. can be.
As with millions of young, educated individuals in the developed and developing world, most young Iranians likely see their education as a chance to improve both themselves and their home. We should be giving them that opportunity rather than teaching them a lesson in intolerance.
By South Coast Today
