A group of protesters marched from in front of Tehran University towards Enqelab Square, chanting slogans. Riot police on motorcycles arrived and fired tear gas and rubber bullets into the crowd. Two young girls separated from the group and ran towards Shanzadeh Street. As they were fleeing, a boy shouted from behind the green university gates, “Come up on the gates, come inside the university, it’s safe here.” This image could be from recent protests in Iran or from the people’s protests in 2009, 2017, or 2019. In most of the uprisings and movements of the past forty years, the university has been at the forefront of social and political movements. Despite its legal immunity against police intervention and government violence, it has never been truly safe for student activists and has always been a target for suppression. However, despite all the government’s policies, force, and ideological indoctrination, it has been unable to stop the university’s movements.

Woman, life, freedom at university

After the 1401 entrance exam, officials of education and higher education acknowledged that most of the accepted students in top universities in recent years have used paid educational facilities and entered university through non-profit schools with high costs (1); a news that speaks of the shrinking of free education in favor of the upper class, which was believed to be close to the ruling system; because it benefits from a kind of rent and government. On the other hand, with the increase in the Basij quota in the entrance exam and the ideological rent that individuals close to the government had for entering university, and the Islamic and ideological teachings that were increasingly included in textbooks, the government thought that after forty-four years, it had completely taken over the university and there would no longer be any movement or uprising in universities; an illusion that “the uprising of Zheina” played a role in.

On September 18, 2022, one day after the funeral of Mahsa (Jina) Amini, the University of Tehran chanted the slogan “Women, Life, Freedom” and the people’s movement for freedom was transferred to the university. Now not only different groups and classes of society, but also students and pupils have joined the new movement in Iran in the year “One”.

The movement of us in May 1968.

The movement known as the May 1968 student movement lasted from the early 1960s until the late 1970s. In America, it was a call for freedom and the rights of black people, as well as opposition to the Vietnam War. In Europe, it was a critique of capitalism and consumer society. May 68 was a turning point in this movement, as it connected student and worker uprisings in France and created the slogan “Students, Workers, Solidarity” (2), leading to widespread strikes and protests in Western Europe. As a result, all the events of this decade that took place in Europe and America, mostly by students, are known as the May 1968 student movement. One of the major impacts of this movement was the rethinking and theorizing of philosophers of that time on the concept of social and political movements, especially the concept of “social movement”. Jean-Paul Sartre, Hannah Arendt, Allen Touraine, and

The movement is a series of social actions that arise from social tensions; that is, social tensions and conflicts rooted in economic and cultural layers create actions and movements that result in a flow and bring tensions to the political arena. These purposeful and imitable movements can easily be transferred among actors and have a universal quality. This is why the May 1968 movement not only influenced Europe and America, but also had an impact on the entire world of the 20th century and quickly involved various social classes and layers; a quality that can also be seen in movements such as “Women, Life, Freedom” and “Gina Uprising”.

Alan Tourne, a French philosopher, considers three components in understanding the movement: who are the actors of the movement? What order and groups have been mobilized and what goal are they pursuing? In his view, in this movement, students and intellectuals rose against the “planned society” and the “post-industrial society”. They wanted participation of all members of society in all social, political and economic affairs and were dissatisfied with the monopoly of the economy, production and politics by a select group of elites.

With a look at these three identities that Toren uses in his examination of the June 68 movement, we can also examine the recent movement in Iran. The youth, students, and ultimately oppressed groups from various social, economic, and political backgrounds have been the actors of the recent movement, rising up against the established government and those close to it, and seeking to dismantle the established order and ideological rule of the Islamic Republic and overthrow this type of government. The protest movement that began after the murder of Mahsa (Zhina) Amini revealed social tensions and quickly spread to different individuals, igniting a movement to overthrow the Islamic Republic system. Therefore, based on the above definitions, a movement called “Women, Life, Freedom” began in Iran and can also be referred to as a revolutionary movement with caution and a perspective of “revolution”. However, one of the active groups in this movement is students; young people who played a significant role in its continuation. Therefore, the interpretations and meanings

Tomorrow is ours and yesterday was theirs.

One of the differences between the 1968 movement and the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement is that the 68 movement started from the university and reached the streets, but the recent movement in Iran started from the streets; although students joined this movement in the early days and accelerated its spread.

A group of sixty-eighters wanted a socialist revolution, while another group sought to transform the established structures and order of society; therefore, the goal of the social revolution was present in the heart of the movement. As a result, the events of ’68 are not dissimilar to the recent movement in Iran. The goal of the revolution, in the sense of transforming everything that has been established until now, has also taken shape in Iran. The issue of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement is not like the Green Reform movement, but rather its destruction. This movement looks towards a new order and law for its future, one that has no relation to what exists today; however, what distinguishes May ’68 from the recent movement in Iran is its historical and geographical context.

Tourn sees the origin of the 68 movement as two elements of prosperity and flourishing. This movement occurred during the period of prosperity after World War II, which existed in the West, when Europe and America were benefiting from economic and material prosperity. The issue for the 68 activists was not the loss of the future, they were not worried about tomorrow, but they did not want to go back. The issue was the fear of returning to the past; (5) but the movement (approximately) a hundred days ago in Iran is heading towards the future, as if it has experienced a return to the past in the 57 revolution, lost its future, and now considers this killed tomorrow. This is where the role of students as the ones who are supposed to hold tomorrow becomes prominent. These students who seek the future as the generation without tomorrow in this movement, shout “stay and take back” and extend it to the youth outside the university.

In May 1968, a movement emerged in the name of democracy, where people lived under the banner of democratic institutions. The issue of this movement was not the establishment of democracy, but rather the pursuit of freedom and equality against a discriminatory capitalist system. The 1968 generation wanted to transform consumer society and their critical stance was based on the idea of free human education, where individuals would be independent and not subjects who had been indoctrinated by capitalism in schools and universities. They had left behind the “material” world and sought “spirituality” and were the carriers of that culture. The current movement in Iran is not about democracy, as it is under the rule of a religious and despotic regime. The issue for student or youth activists in this movement is both freedom from the ruling power and economic and livelihood demands. It is about a future where freedom and prosperity are achieved and independent democratic institutions are established, free from religion and religious tyranny. Today’s activist youth are not fighting out

One of the similarities between the student movement of May and the recent movement that has encompassed Iranian universities is the police’s confrontation with students. During the student clashes in May 1968, a student was killed by the police and the police also attacked the University of Sorbonne in France. This government violence intensified the tendency towards violence in some students and young people of the May 1968 movement, and the streets of France witnessed several days of violence from both the government and students.

In Iran, the attack of the police on the historic university is a well-known event. The Islamic Republic police not only have a history of attacking students in recent movements in 1378 and 1388, but Iranian students in previous uprisings and the current movement, despite the massacres, arrests, suppression, and intimidation, intelligently avoid violent behaviors. This may be one of the fundamental points in understanding the current student movement, as students continue to use peaceful methods of protest despite maximum suppression in universities and on the streets, and the violent behavior of the government towards protesters and activists. They try to continue the movement symbolically and create new patterns, such as painting blood on university walls, composing revolutionary songs, moving the self-service cafeteria to the university courtyard, not attending classes, and creating new slogans for the movement.

Asking about the Promised Land

Where is the university? Hannah Arendt, a German political philosopher, defines the university as a place outside the realm of politics and social control. The university is a place for discovering truth and questioning it. It is neither completely under the control of politics nor society; it is a formal place for learning and an informal place for questioning outside of definitions and frameworks. According to Arendt, it is this very characteristic that gives value to the movement and activity of the university; because the issue of the student is not power and politics, but a moral matter that drives them towards movement; but her point here is that: “Before the student movement dragged universities into the political arena, the dominant powers had already given them a political quality… The issue is not limited to military research. No matter how much pressure we put on our imagination, we cannot claim that companies like Dow Chemical, the Navy, or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are educational institutions or institutions whose goal is the pursuit

During the 1968 movement, ethical issues were alive until violent behaviors and the issue of violence had not emerged; although this violence was mainly carried out by the government in France and the United States and forced students to react, giving power to the violent side of the movement and leading to its integration into the overall system. Ultimately, the democratic foundation and moral motivations of the movement also had legal and political achievements, leading to the rise of the women’s liberation and environmentalism movements.

Arnett sees alongside criticism and condemnation the violent tendencies of a group of students in the May 68 movement, one of their characteristics being a strong determination to act and find pleasure and happiness in their actions. The students of the 68s were confident that with their efforts, they could bring about change; although this tendency towards action progressed to the point where violence became necessary for them, it was the field of action and participation in public life that made the concept of “shared destiny” important to them. The students, through their own experiences and the opening of the space for their actions, questioned the established authority. They desired a revolution, but they did not possess revolutionary power, because “revolutionary forces know when power has fallen in the streets and when they can take it.” The students of the 68s had no concept of power, and if it were ever released, they would not be able to grasp it. On the other hand, Arnett believed that students in America lacked the

One can raise questions about the process, organization, and transformation of students into revolutionary forces in the current movement in Iran. Today, student activists in Iran are following the same ethical path as the student movement of May 1968. It seems that the issue of universities is not about interfering in power and gaining political power, which is exactly the ethical question of the established system and government about discrimination, inequality, tyranny, massacre, and oppression. Drawing their sphere of action and the government’s reaction to the university inevitably opens the door to politics and this is the point of convergence that highlights the necessity of independent organization and formation for students. If we look at the actions and reactions of students in the past hundred days, we see that Iranian students are also happy to be activists and participate in collective action. They have also reached the issue of “common destiny” and want to play a role in this path, but to what extent can they organize when Hamidreza Rouhi, their fellow student,

The current student movement in Iranian universities has not distanced itself from ethical principles despite the use of non-violent methods, has paid the price and continues to resist, helping to sustain the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement, creating slogans and symbols for the movement and transferring its wave to schools and elementary schools. If we look at the Iranian student movement from Arendt’s perspective, it is better to say that the student is not a revolutionary force, even if he is seeking to change structures and overthrow the established order. This is his strength that keeps him away from power and politics, keeps the question of ethics and truth alive and contributes to the continuity and survival of the university. But what is the necessity of continuing this movement? How long and where can the student movement of “Year One” in Iran continue despite suppression and prevention of university organization? Do Iranian students have awareness about power and revolution or are they, like the students of May 68, excited about action and execution

Notes:

1- Aamli, Saeed Reza, allocated 84% of the top ranks in the university entrance exam to the top three income deciles of society, ISNA, June 8, 2022.

2- Khajevandi, Samieh, A Look at the Slogans of May 68, BBC Persian, 5 Khordad 1397.

3- Nikfar, Mohammad Reza, 1968: The Expansion of the Realm of Possibility, Radio Zamaneh, 17 Ordibehesht 1397.

4- Same.

5- Same.

6- Arnt, Hannah, thoughts on politics and revolution, Fooladwand, Azatollah, Kharazmi, April 2015.

7- Same.