Norton Mezvinsky
I first wish to put the matter at hand into context. I shall then focus upon the major issues and problems herein involved. Finally, I shall humbly direct a suggestion to the University Senate. As part of the CCSU Middle East Lecture Series, which I plan and coordinate, Trita Parsi presented a lecture on January 29, based upon his highly acclaimed book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press). This book had already received great praise in scholarly and serious reviews, e.g. in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs and in the equally prestigious, New York Review of Books as well as in other journals in this country, Europe and Israel. Shlomo Ben-Ami, a leading Israeli foreign minister wrote one of the praiseworthy reviews on the back cover of the book. Trita Parsi has appeared as a commentator on almost every major radio and television network in this country. On January 29, before his CCSU lecture, he recorded an interview on National Public Radio that was subsequently broadcast. Trita Parsi has also written articles, published in scholarly journals and other serious publications. Trita Parsi has been a regular participant at major political think tank discussions in Washington. I met him for the first time at one of these functions.
Trita Parsi has a large following in the Iranian-American community. He is president of the National Iranian American Council, the single largest American Iranian organization. The Iranian-American Community, similar to some other ex-patriate communities, is widely split politically. Dean Siamak Shojai is a consistent advocate for those in this community who have on political grounds criticized Parsi.
I mentioned all of this, because it is germane to the matter at hand. I have listened to Dean Shojai charge—in defense of what I shall in a few moments consider—that Trita Parsi is not highly regarded in the Iranian-American community. That charge is misleading and incorrect on balance. Shojai and his colleagues disagree with and do not like Parsi. Parsi and his colleagues disagree with and do not like Shojai; they are especially disturbed by Shojai’s extreme condemnations of many individuals with whom he (Shojai) disagrees. In the materials I have accumulated, all of which is available. To anyone interested, there is documentation of Shojai’s previous attacks upon individuals with whom he disagrees.
Be all of that as it may, the crux of the matter at hand should not be viewed as a political debate. I did not become concerned about this matter, because I may agree or disagree with certain political positions. I am not appearing before you today in order to make a political statement. Rather, in this instance I am concerned about principles of diversity that are often emphasized at this university and about treatment of invited lecturers to campus. Only after learning more about what had transpired after Parsi’s lecture and having received a copy of Parsi’s first complaint to President Miller did I decide on principle to involve myself more deeply. I must say here I am surprised that Provost Lovitt, in conducting his investigation initiated after my involvement, did not speak with Trita Parsi, who is the major complainant in this matter.
I shall now consider the major issues and problems:
1) I contend that Dean Shojai’s comment after Trita Parsi’s lecture was off-base and out-of-line. Admittedly, some other people who attended the session agree with this contention of mine and have so written to Provost Lovitt while others, who attended the session, disagree with this contention. The Shojai comment was largely ad-hominem. Shojai admitted that he had not read Parsi’s book, which was the basis for and focus of the lecture and which contains voluminous documentation. Shojai charged that Parsi was a propagandist for the Mullahs of Iran, and the student, therefore, were not listening to an academic lecture. Professor Sadunand has spent a good deal of time working to enhance the volume of a tape recording of the Shojai comment. I have given a copy of that enhanced tape to Provost Lovitt. The tape is available for anyone who may wish to listen to it. Regardless of my dismay with the comment following the lecture this would have passed without formal complaint had the next development not occurred.
2) The day following the Parsi lecture. Dean Shojai appeared on Radio Station KRSI in Los Angeles and in an interview, aired over the internet, discussed in Farsi (Persian) Trita Parsi and his CCSU lecture. Professor Sadanand made a tape of the interview, which is available on the internet website. I gave a copy of the tape to President Miller and suggested that the university acquire its own independent translation. President Miller gave the tape to Provost Lovitt, who had it translated. I gave Provost Lovitt a second tape of the original Farsi after realizing that one segment of the interview pertaining to what Shojai said about me was missing in the first tape. The entire interview was on the website of KRSI. (There is no “official” translation of Farsi to English. Rather, professional translators are certified to do translations. I authorized, personally paid for and have three professional translations in addition to two other translations of the interview in Farsi. My translations are available on request. The translator from whom I shall mostly cite in this statement has, since the early 1980s to date, translated and interpreted from Farsi to English for the U.S. State Department, the FBI, the United States Department of Justice, immigration courts, United Nations international conferences, United States federal courts, New York and New Jersey Courts, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and CNN. He is duly certified. All of my translations went to the cited website of the radio station and translated from the original source. Provost Lovitt’s translator could also have done so. Professor Lovitt mostly relied upon his translator. I have relied upon my translators.)
The first part of my complaint about the Shojai interview has to do with the following, which he said about me—as translated into English by the professional translator for whom I have just presented his credits: “He very much almost apologized to me. He [Mezvinsky] said: ‘I am sorry, excuse me, it seems that he [Parsi] was talking unilaterally and that I want to ask you to introduce us to someone who could provide supplemental information to be invited here to the university in order to maintain a balance here and God forbid if lobbying has entered or penetrated the scientific and academic atmosphere.’”
One of my other certified, professional translators wrote that in translation Shojai stated I told him [Shojai] that Parsi was in fact “propagandizing” in his lecture. I did not say to Shojai what he here alleged I did say. I have been asked about and even criticized by academic colleagues and politicos in Washington and in other places for what Dean Shojai said about me. I have answered the criticisms, but I am still disturbed by this.
Even more disturbing is what Shojai had to say about Parsi in the last part of the interview. What I shall read from translation is the relevant part fully within context of what Shojai answered in response to his interviewing host, whose name is Meybodi:
“Mr. Maybodi, his faces looks like Indian, Pakistani or Afghani. I think he is probably biracial, like his father or his mother may have been from one of our neighboring countries, from my point of view, of course, Afghanistan is part of Iran, he may have such ancestry. His intelligence, Mr. Maybodi, may be at a level where he could study at a classic level and get a grade, to author a book or do some research, however, I realized, unfortunately, whenever our intelligent people who become politically polluted and diverted, and then you twist them, all that intelligence disappears.”
Another of my professional, certified translators, as would be expected, said much the same thing but added that the wording of facial appearance of Parsi reflected darker skin.
Numerous individuals, fluent in Farsi, who listened to the interview, wrote complaints to President Miller and used harsher words in translation. Dr. Ahmad Sadri, Professor of Sociology and the occupant of the James P. Gorter Chair of Islamic World Studies at Lake Forest College, wrote: “In the interview Dr. Shojai made remarks laced with racism (commenting on Parsi’s skin tone he speculated about his being “do-rageh”—that is a half breed) and used improper sexual allusions (calling Parsi ‘dallal-e-mohabbat,’ that is a pimp.)” I cite in the harsher translation of words to indicate what was conveyed to some individuals by the words in Farsi that Shojai chose to use.
Understandably, Parsi complained in a letter to President Miller. Other people, fluent in Farsi, as already indicated, who listened to this interview reacted as did Parsi. Many academics, among others, wrote to President Miller and Chancellor Carter in dismay and anger. I only have time to read one of these letters. It is typical.
Fatemeh Keshavarz, is professor and chairperson of the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages and Literatures at Washington University in St. Louis, one of this country’s premier universities. She is one of the most outstanding authorities in the Persian language, Persian literature, Persian history and Iranian culture. She wrote this email to President Miller on March 4, 2008:
“Dear President Miller,
I wrote to Chancellor Carter literally minutes ago. I would like to share with you the same troubling thoughts that convinced me I should write to him. These thoughts were the result of the incident following Dr. Trita Parsi's invited lecture at the Central Connecticut State University in late January. I am referring to the fact that Dr. Siamak Shojai, Dean of the Business School at CCSU, appeared on KRSI radio and Pars TV and made severe personal attacks on Dr. Parsi. The incident was first brought to my attention during a trip I made to Atlanta to speak at Emory last week. I don't think I understood the gravity of the incident at the time. Later, a translation of the transcript of the radio show was e-mailed to me. Today, after I decided to write to you, I went on line and listened to the show in the original Persian.
I have not met Dr. Parsi myself. However, I have heard him speak on various shows. Furthermore, I have read his book by Yale University Press called "Treacherous Alliance: the Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S." with great interest and admiration. As an academic interested in Iran, I have nothing but tremendous respect for the work that he has done. It does not surprise me that someone of Dr. Parsi's caliber won't be popular with some Iranian talk shows in California.
What is shocking is that Dean Shojai would appear on these shows and - using a demeaning and racially unacceptable language - put down the speaker officially invited to his campus as "lacking in intelligence" and a "pimp" for the Islamic Republic. In his assertions, he also presents his CCSU colleagues as ashamed and apologetic for having invited Dr. Parsi in the first place.
Dean Shojai is entitled to his political perspective. He may believe that anyone arguing against a military attack on Iran is an agent of the Islamic Republic. But his action is totally unprofessional. I sincerely hope that by taking swift action, you show that the university is on the side of diversity of opinion and, more importantly, it can guarantee that its invited speakers will not be subjected to public verbal abuse by its own faculty.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely,
Fatemeh Keshavarz, Professor and Chair
Dept. of Asian and Near Eastern Languages and Literatures Washington University in St. Louis”
There is little doubt in my mind that if language, similar to that used by Dean Shojai, had been directed to a Latino or to an African-American it would have provoked similar comments from many Latino and African-American academics, spokespeople and others. And, I suggest, rightly so.
We at CCSU pride ourselves on our advocacy of diversity, affirmative action and friendly campus environment. We have unfortunately recently had a few racial incidents on campus that may have done some damage to our image. I suggest, Dean Shojai, that you have unfortunately potentially contributed to further damage. I do not understand why at our meeting last Thursday you even refused to accept President Miller’s suggestion that you might at least apologize if your words—as opposed to what you say was your true intent—may have—although incorrectly from your perspective—conveyed any kind of racial slur.
To this University Senate I issue an appeal to make a statement that may help forestall further damage to the reputation and image of this university. To do nothing may make the report by Provost Lovitt stand as a cover-up.
I have been asked by a major political think tank in Washington to discuss in a few weeks this Shojai-Parsi matter on a panel discussion about diversity issues on the campus. I hope that I have more to present on behalf of this university that the report by Provost Lovitt.