I was pleased that the simulation largely satisfied my hopes that such an exercise
would promote empathy among students for citizens whose lives are shaped by different
types of political institutions, ideologies, and understandings of political freedom. The
defense in particular was forced to recognize the extreme limitations placed on free
expression and political participation in a totalitarian state, with all forms of expression
being interpreted through the rubric of revolutionary ideology and goals. One student
expressed the frustration of trying to articulate the defense’s argument by pointing out
that her group was not able to use what she described as ‘reason’ to defend itself or the
book; the defense’s statements were routinely dismissed as evidence of Western (and
especially American) corruption, attacks on the revolution, and misinterpretations of the
teachings of the late Ayatollah Khomenei. Furthermore, merely by defending the book,
defense members believed that they were already endangering themselves by identifying
themselves to the revolutionary court as supporters of what was presumed to be
‘criminal’ literature. Several students indicated that it was even difficult to find
appropriate language with which to cross-examine the members of the prosecution,
because the act of questioning the prosecution’s interests could be interpreted as an attack
on the Islamic Republic.
The simulation was also effective in immersing students in a political world in
which the state seeks both to define morality and to use its coercive power to recast all of
society to fit this vision. This became evident in the prosecution’s efforts to dissolve the
barriers between the public and private spheres in order to impose a ‘totalizing’ morality,
and in the defense’s efforts to preserve the integrity of a private domain of life, free from
the intrusions of state power. The interactions between the two groups on issues of
morality, and of whether a private realm of behavior actually existed, became one of the
19
Convention