Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Elite Ex-Taliban

March 31, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Ever since word started to spread last month that an ex-Taliban member named Sayeed Rahmatullah Hashemi had for months been attending classes along with the thousands of other backpack-toting students at Yale University, a steady stream of criticism has been directed at the institution.

Administrators have thus far stood by their decision to let him enroll. And a majority of students and professors on the campus itself seem to back the admission of Hashemi to a non-degree granting program.

“The outsiders are largely right-wing commentators,” says Zachariah Victor, a member of Yale’s Graduate and Professional Student Senate. “They don't have reason, science or history on their side, so they try to degrade intellectuals and universities. Rational argument cannot support them, so they turn to ‘morality’ and religion. They have little expertise, so they deprecate expert opinion and appeal to populist sentiment. They cannot comprehend the breadth of our constitution, so they try to subject the rights of the few to the superstitions of the many.”

“Most attacks on Mr. Hashemi from outside of Yale are political in nature,” agrees Joshua Krug, a student leader with Yale’s Hillel group. “Conservatives want the country to believe that ultra-liberals control American universities.”

One professor, who wanted to remain anonymous because he “didn’t want to face an onslaught of attacks from the right,” said Thursday that many people don’t realize that half the U.S. approved Afghan government, including President Hamid Karzai, are former members of the Taliban. “If that standard is good enough for the U.S. government, why should it be any different for Yale?” he asked.

Critics, like David Bookstaber, who graduated from Yale in 1999, say that one must look at Hashemi’s past to understand the complete picture. Throughout 2001 and for years before that, Hashemi had defended the actions of the Taliban and even had a heated debate with the Yale law professor (and now law dean) Harold Hongju Koh in March of that year.

“Many proponents of Hashemi at Yale have tried to paint this as a partisan issue, says Bookstaber, who has contributed to the “Nail Yale” blog, which is run by four Yale alumni “who are outraged by our alma mater’s decision to admit former Taliban official Sayeed Rahmatullah Hashemi as a special student.”

“I don't think there's any sort of consensus on this issue; reactions run the spectrum from, ‘Yale is so great for doing this,’ to, ‘This is an outrage,’" adds Bookstaber.

When Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in 2004, Hashemi appeared in the documentary, with many Americans associating him as the face of a larger enemy. But since 9/11, Hashemi has said that he is no longer a member of the Taliban. He also told the New York Times Magazine in February that he wanted to pursue an education to try to better support his family. After applying to Yale, he was admitted in 2005 and started classes there last summer. He’s also participated in a "Jews and Muslims" dialogue group.

Since the news first broke of Hashemi’s admission, many talk show hosts and columnists -- often of the conservative bent -- have blasted the institution for allowing him to attend the elite institution. Many have pointed out that he stopped going to school in elementary school and took a high school equivalency test, which he passed in 2003.

But administrators have stood firm behind their decision. “We hope that his courses help him understand the broader context for the conflicts around the world,” Yale officials said in a recent statement. “We acknowledge that some are criticizing Yale for allowing Hashemi to take courses here, but we hope that critics will also acknowledge that universities are places that must strive to increase understanding, especially of the most difficult issues that face the nation and the world.”

Hashemi was issued U.S. visas in 2004 and 2005, according to the State Department, first on a tourist visa and then in 2005 on a student visa. “The mandatory procedures were followed, which, in his case, included vetting through an interagency security clearance process,” according to the administration’s statement. “He was cleared by all agencies.”

Bookstaber has asked whether the institution should have ever admitted a person with so little formal education and who had been affiliated with the Taliban in the first place.

In an unscientific online poll, conducted by The Yale Herald student newspaper, a majority of undergraduate students said they didn’t have a problem with Yale’s decision. A majority also said they would support Hashemi's continuing his education at Yale in a degree-granting program.

“I think the major question is, given the decision that was made by the admissions office that Hashemi is qualified to learn at Yale, is whether he poses a threat to the country,” says Krug. “Applying to Yale in the first place and while here, participating in Yale's 'Jews and Muslims' dialogue group, Hashemi seems to want to expand his mind. Hashemi, by learning here, has already changed his approach to the world.”

“[A]ll admissions decisions are confidential and there is no litmus test,” Helaine Klasky, a spokeswoman for the university, said Thursday. She said that this is “an extraordinarily busy time for admissions” and officials in that office were thus not available for comment.

Hashemi could not be reached for comment for this article, but it is expected that he will complete his studies at Yale in May.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Elite Ex-Taliban

  • I'm sure Goebbels would have made a good Yalie too
  • Posted by Besieged Classical Liberal , Professor at An American university on March 31, 2006 at 6:20am EST
  • Do the Yale administrators, and for that matter the students and faculty, have any idea what the Taliban stands for? Does our famous American historical amnesia even erase the events of less than a decade ago? I suppose it is fruitless to ask if Sayeed Rahmatullah Hashemi has repented of his advocacy for the Taliban. He just says he is no longer a "member". His attendance at some sort of Jewish-Muslim dialogue is supposed to show his new liberalism?

    I can't tell here if this is just a badly-written article (especially when an online poll is cited as evidence for anything) or if the Yale community simply does not know what it means to be Taliban, or American, for that matter. Even their take on the discourse is odd: “Most attacks on Mr. Hashemi from outside of Yale are political in nature." Of course! What do they think "political" is? And American universities are NOT controlled by ultra-liberals?

    Shame on Yale for its implicit support of fascism and America's enemies. As an academic, I'm again dismayed by the amoral and ahistorical ways in which so many of my colleagues face the world.

  • Ex-Taliban at Yale
  • Posted by Cheryl at Non-profit education organization on March 31, 2006 at 8:41am EST
  • In my opinion the scarier question is how the heck did this guy get a visa to tour and live in the U.S. when he was so vocal about being a member of the Taliban? Seems like another case of our screwed up immigration laws. Good going U.S. government!

  • the denial of change
  • Posted by Margaret Campbell , Ms on March 31, 2006 at 8:45am EST
  • Those who are against the admission of the student have put themselves in the position that one never, ever changes one's views.

    Which is one of the things that students are supposed to do, yes? As they learn more and see more, they merge what they've learned with what they knew before, and they change.

    Denying application or enrollment on the basis of a person's history means that our society really should change their correctional policies, and make everything a capital crime--after all, the perp will never learn or change, so why bother?

  • pc check at the border?
  • Posted by rackles on March 31, 2006 at 8:45am EST
  • Are our besiged "classical liberals" and not-so-classic "conservative" critics simply not aware that US universities educate many thousand Saudis, Pakistanis, Yemenis, etc.? Should we apply a religious test to them as well, "Are you now or have you ever been a supporter of sharia law?" If so, please have the guts to say so. Otherwise...

  • Fascinating
  • Posted by Bad English on March 31, 2006 at 8:45am EST
  • I find it fascinating that colleges, like Yale, and finding it increasingly difficult to keep what they are concealed from the public. Here, Yale admitted a top official from a full-fledged terrorist group that summarily slaughtered thousands in very public executions. Yet, Yale refused point blank to admit any women refugees from Afghanistan who were the victims of Hashemi's terrorism: These women studied for years in secret, for fear of being executed merely for wanting an education.

    And Yale couldn't even give them the time of day.

    There really is no mistaking what Yale has become. And interestingly enough, Harvard has gone into bunker mode with respect to questions about the admittee that Shaw mentioned had been snapped away from Yale's loving embrace. All the poisons that lurk in the academic mud are hatching out.

    Again, it is fascinating to witness.

  • And What About The John Birchers?
  • Posted by RWH on March 31, 2006 at 8:45am EST
  • I certainly don’t want to take issue with his general theme, but Besieged Classical Liberal’s statement, “Shame on Yale for its implicit support of fascism and America’s enemies” suggests some sort of political litmus test for prospective students that makes no sense at all.

    As a young man, Rahmatullah Hashemi, played an important administrative role with the Taliban. My goodness, early in their lives, Senators Robert Byrd, Jesse Helms and Trent Lott, great Americans all, were member of the Ku Klux Klan. John Hancock and Samuel Adams were members of the Sons of Liberty. Wernher von Braun, "Werner Heisenberg, and Otto Hahn were, at least for short times, Nazis.

    I realize the Taliban is the antithesis of just about everything that is important to the United States, but a fascism litmus test for entrance into Yale – or any university – is (1) simply wrong and (2) unworkable.

    But, as long as were at it, perhaps we should investigate the membership of those blood brothers, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, and John Kerry, in Skull and Bones. There’s more than a little evidence suggesting that S&B is a fascist organization.

  • A Deficit of Intellectual Diversity
  • Posted by Stu Gittelman on March 31, 2006 at 9:00am EST
  • A favorite diversionary tactic of ancien regime Southerners when civil rights workers would come to town was to dismiss the entire issue as the agitation of outsiders.

    Yale's administration seems to be waging a proxy campaign which is using the same tired old saw here. It would be nice if they'd tackle this issue directly. Meanwhile, the meltdown in the academy continues apace.

    If it is true that "so much" of the concern about the campus presence of a fourth-grade educated mouthpiece of a distinctly non-diverse, patriarchal, misogynistic, homophobic, illiberal, undemocratic, and belligerent strain of religious and political fanaticism comes from outsiders, it makes for a trenchant comment about the deficit of intellectual diversity on the Yale campus.

    P.S.: If Yale is going to defend itself with "if it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for us," does that mean they'll be ending the ban on ROTC pretty soon? Just curious.

  • The end of the world as we know it
  • Posted by A.D. on March 31, 2006 at 12:05pm EST
  • This is nuts. Yale promotes this gent as part of its global stature -- then starts to back-peddle when some of his former victims pop up.

    One part of one wild year: Harvard loses a president and no one wants the job; Harvard school issues paper on "The Israel Lobby" that gets blasted for lack of primacy of research; Duke sports-frat party explodes; Kenyon official cites pro-male bias in admissions and no one wonders about why male enrollments are dropping; and a UAE firm with no criminal record gets yanked from a deal while millions of illegal aliens wander through the U.S. unchecked (forcing your writer and other students to move because they're willing to pay 10% more for rent); and so on. Great.

    BTW: about this -- " .. the scarier question is how the heck did this guy get a visa .."

    Yale blogs indicate he just applied for a student visa quietly, got into the U.S. with no problems, then attracted the attention of Yale management.

    That is, except for the last part, like how the 9/11 attackers got into the U.S. Makes me wonder why I have to take off my shoes for airport security.

  • Taliban
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on March 31, 2006 at 12:05pm EST
  • The man didn't go to high school (I think he only had three years of formal schooling)and failed the high school equivalency test in Afganistan the first time he took it. Yet, somehow, he vaulted right over hundreds of validictorians and top students to a place at Yale. If this doesn't show the direction Yale is going, I'm not sure what does.

    This man should have been tried for participation in crimes against humanity for his actions in support of the Taliban's purposeful atrocities against civilians under their rule. Instead, he has been welcomed with open arms to one of the nation's top university after Americans bled and died to throw his ilk out of power.

  • Posted by Larry on March 31, 2006 at 12:05pm EST
  • A few quick points. I don’t think the Talliban’s political philosophy was ever fascist. Theocratic, yes. Oppressive, yes. But not fascist. The Talliban, at its best, couldn’t organize a parade, yet alone require everyone to completely associate themself with the state.

    Second, there is no evidence that this person actually participated in acts of terrorism. All his opponents can muster is a declaration that he “supported” the Taliban. So did a lot of people. Political fortunes in Afghanistan changed over the years. One would have to have been extremely lucky to have never associated with a group that fell out of disfavor.

    Third, Yale, like all institutions probably can positively influence Afghanistan by training its children, most of which do not have completely politically-correct past. Unless someone was an active participate in an act of terrorism or torture, there really doesn’t seem to be any reason to exclude him from the United States for his political beliefs.

  • Posted by Dan G on March 31, 2006 at 12:05pm EST
  • How can this be a partisan issue? How can the left collectively defend a man who only a few years before his Yale admission, was shilling for a fascist regime rules by religious fundies?

    Its not about his beliefs - which, according to recent quotes, are still quite odious in regard to women and gays. Its about his active participation as a government official. He was an official propagandist who said some truly horrible things and regularly defended atrocities.

    I'm all for rehabilitation. If it had been 10 years, and he had some sort of evolution of thought or life changing experience, well, ok - people do change. But that hasn't happened here.

    Its certainly possible to be an official in a repressive government and not be directly culpable for their acts. But this guy was an official mouthpiece. Folks who defend him need to listen to some of the Afghan women who have spoken out against his Yale admission.

    Also, shame on DHS for granting him a visa. I think we can safely determine that DHS is a big waste of money at this point.

  • Posted by Anon on March 31, 2006 at 12:40pm EST
  • "Do the Yale administrators, and for that matter the students and faculty, have any idea what the Taliban stands for?"

    Yes. But Yale should not make academic decisions on the basis of an individual's politics or beliefs.

    "Does our famous American historical amnesia even erase the events of less than a decade ago?"

    No. But Yale should not make academic decisions on the basis of an individual's politics or beliefs.

    "I suppose it is fruitless to ask if Sayeed Rahmatullah Hashemi has repented of his advocacy for the Taliban."

    It may or may not be fruitless, but it is certainly irrelevant, because Yale should not make academic decisions on the basis of an individual's politics or beliefs.

    "He just says he is no longer a 'member'. His attendance at some sort of Jewish-Muslim dialogue is supposed to show his new liberalism?"

    He may or may not be newly liberal, but that is irrelevant, because Yale should not make academic decisions on the basis of an individual's politics or beliefs.

    And American universities are NOT controlled by ultra-liberals?

    Perhaps they are, in the sense that a majority of professors are liberals. But American universities do not ask what a professor's politics or beliefs are before hiring her or granting her tenure, because American universities should not make academic decisions on the basis of an individual's politics or beliefs.

    As an academic, I’m again dismayed by the amoral and ahistorical ways in which so many of my colleagues face the world.

    You are entitled to your dismay. But I am certain that you do not let it affect the grades you give your students or the recommendations you give your colleagues, because you know perfectly well that you should not make academic decisions on the basis of an individual's politics or beliefs.

  • Posted by brett , grad student at Indiana U. on March 31, 2006 at 1:10pm EST
  • Didn't Bush go to Yale, too? How many people has he killed in Iraq? Surely more than the Taliban has/did. That is just a thought.

    Also, the only reason people shouldn't be at college is because they are unqualified, not because they don't believe what we all do. That is the real argument against him being at school. Still, private schools pick students how they will, including affirmative action, which is the case here. He is technically protected by the first amendment until he actually attempts a violent action. People are openly Nazi in schools but they are allowed to stay. He should be allowed to stay too. We need a diversity of ideas, even ones we hate or that hate us. Look at the argument this started as an example.

  • Anon and Brett
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on March 31, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • Anon, violent actions and acting in support of groups like the Taliban is far more than a political opinion. You make it seem as though this person is simply partaking in a polite discussion of differing opinions, rather than a propagandist for and a participant in one of the most repressive and totalitarian regimes in human history. Unlike neonazis, who didn't participate in the Third Reich and aren't ussually active in any meaningful way against their racial opponents, this man actively participated in the justification of the slaughter of innocents throughout Afganistan. We would have tried Goebbels had we been given the chance - if there is to be a tribunal this time, this man should certainly be among those indited. He certainly should not be accepted in this nation or anywhere on earth where civilized people (and I use that term broadly) live.

    Brett, the man failed a high school equivalency test in Afganistan. He remarked in an interview that his practices to take the GED in America were not going well and he didn't intend to take it. He has three years of formal education in a madrassas in a Pakistani refugee camp. There are lots and lots and lots of people who are far, far, far more academically qualified. Even the most ardent supporter of affirmative action (and I am not) should be able to recognize that he should not have a place at Yale on the basis of academic deficiency alone.

  • No specifics; no argument
  • Posted by Larry on March 31, 2006 at 3:20pm EST
  • Kevin, It isn’t clear to me whether he matriculated, or whether he is just taking courses. Yale (and most schools) have different (much lower) standards if someone is simply taking courses.

    Likewise, it is unclear as to the extent of his “support” of “violent groups.” Because people did not provide specifics of what he did, I tend to think that the criticism are politically-based. Someone with a real argument would have provided specifics.

  • Posted by Mick on March 31, 2006 at 3:45pm EST
  • For the Left, Academic Freedom is extended to all. Unless of course the person disagrees with the Left. Then they are just called names by the President of the Graduate Student Council.

    This man was not just a "member" of the Taliban, he was their international spokesperson, and an active participant in the reign of terror that group rained upon Afghanistan and the world.

  • One wonders
  • Posted by John on March 31, 2006 at 9:45pm EST
  • This week about 19,000 U.S. high school seniors, many with sterling records, will receive rejection letters from Yale. One wonders what they think about all of this.

  • Financial aid
  • Posted by sillyone on April 1, 2006 at 5:40am EST
  • More importantly, did he qualify for financial aid? Is the American taxpayer footing the bill to house this yahoo at Yale? Certainly, many foreign students manage to dip into that well.

  • Posted by tcnixon on April 1, 2006 at 1:35pm EST
  • Folks: Reading lesssons may be required before you post. He didn't jump ahead of much of anyone because he is a non-degree student. Many schools offer locals the opportunity to take courses on campus without matriculating. Often this can be a pathway to regular admission based on the student's ability to pass courses.

    There are many arguments to be made about whether or not he should have been allowed to take courses. This is not one of them.

  • Answers to questions
  • Posted by Larry on April 1, 2006 at 4:10pm EST
  • Sillyone, No, he did not receive financial aid.

    John, Most of the students that received rejection letters were seeking matriculation into Yale. He did not seek this. This is why they were rejected. (Also, Yale is concerned about admitting undergrads based on whether their family went there. This is a very liberal idea that just started in the 1960s.)

    Tcnixon, While what you say is literally correct, you must understand that it is often more important to jump to conclusions on these issues than to actually analyze them.

  • Posted by Monideepa on April 2, 2006 at 6:45am EDT
  • I see mere prejudice rather than logical strength in the anti-admission arguments posted thus far. Are you saying the man should've been denied admission for his past/present opinions or for his past actions? If for his opinions, then you're wrong. Plain wrong. If for his alleged actions, then neither you nor the Yale admissions committee are in a position to judge his culpability. That is for an Afghan court of law to determine. If there is no arrest warrant out on him in his home country, if the DHS granted him visa, if he has indulged in no criminal activity since his arrival here, and if he is deemed admission-worthy by the university, why the hell should he not be allowed to take classes? I understand the anger, and I'm not speaking from any personal regard for this guy (hardly!), but I really don't see any logical ground for denying him admission.

  • Fourth-grade education
  • Posted by Bad English on April 2, 2006 at 9:50am EDT
  • "I really don’t see any logical ground for denying him admission."

    The full extent of his "education" ended at the fourth grade. How many other people with fourth-grade educations are being admitted to Yale again? Or are you insisting that it is illogical to exclude fourth-graders from universities?

  • Posted by Monideepa on April 2, 2006 at 8:15pm EDT
  • First, this guy is only taking classes; he is not matriculating. This point has been repeated many times and some people keep forgetting it perhaps because they don't really care to know the facts. Second, I think Yale knows better than anyone else what its admissions standards are! If their decision to let this guy in hurts their reputation and lowers their standards, they will pay the price. If people think Yale is not the institution it used to be because of this, they simply need not apply to Yale or send their children there.

  • At this point, we all know
  • Posted by Bad English on April 3, 2006 at 9:45am EDT
  • Yes indeed, at this point we all know what Yale's admissions standards are. But that, of course, is not the point.

    The point is that, contrary to your assertion, there is sound logical reason not to prefer this guy for admission on any basis over thousands of hard-working and talented students, including the victims of his terror regime (Yale refused similar admission to Afghan women who studied for years in secret for fear of punishment by this guy and his thug friends).

  • Posted by Larry on April 3, 2006 at 10:40am EDT
  • Bad, You realize that anyone (no matter where they are from) could probably take courses at Yale on a non-matriculated basis?

  • Yale president Levin to resign
  • Posted by S Silverstein , Petition for Yale president Levin to resign on April 3, 2006 at 12:30pm EDT
  • A peition calling for Yale president Richard Levin to resign:

    We, the undersigned, find the conduct of Yale President Richard Levin reprehensible. He has remained almost silent in face of opposition to Yale's admitting a former Taliban spokesperson. It's bad enough that Yale's reputation has been tarnished globally by the admission of a person who aided and abetted one of the most brutal regimes on the face of the earth. However, his stony silence and the silence of his administration, even to pleas from relatives of 9/11 victims, is beyond the pale. This is not the stance of a leader, but of a tyrant and coward. Yale University deserves better leadership. Levin should resign.

    http://www.webpetitions.com/cgi-bin/print_petition.cgi?99500479

  • diversitry
  • Posted by BT on April 3, 2006 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Diversity is a wonderful practice - let's see if colleges continue their headlong pursuit for intellectual diversity and differing opinions by hiring conservative (or even non-liberal) professors and putting non-leftist ideologues on their boards.

    Doubtful - with the trend of losses in elections, judges and the delcine and fall of the media, entertainment and academia is the lone bastion of liberal control.

  • Why So Many Hate America
  • Posted by Joseph Igbukara , Mr. on April 3, 2006 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I came here from Nigeria ten years ago. I know what it is like to live in terrible situations and to see people die. I am always surprised by how many people in the colleges hate this country. They say they do not. But they do. Or they want to change it. As someone from a terrible place I can say this is a good place. America is very fair even though many people always complain that it is not. I am not Christian, but I see many of them and they have all been nice people. This Taliban hates America. After what I have seen it is no surprise that he should go to American college where all silly young people with easy life hate America. The Taliban belongs with them.

  • Web petitions
  • Posted by Larry on April 3, 2006 at 2:35pm EDT
  • Ms. Silvertein, Web petitions are widely regarded as the most influential and insightful pieces of advocacy known to man. I would urge you to sign as many as possible so that you, too, might be associated with such great intellectual movements.

    BT, I don’t know how you are drawing all these connections. Although I don’t generally vote, I am unsure how you people are able to categorize professors into “liberal” “conservative” or “non-ideological.” Indeed, I don’t know why it matters. Though, I concede, that I have implied (for money) that I was both either a “liberal” or a “conservative.” Some people like to hear these things, but it doesn’t seem to make much difference if one takes their discipline seriously.

    I am also, unsure, BT, whether you actually differentiate between the rational self-interests of academics with perhaps the ideological assumptions. For instance, it is quite possible for one to be a “free-market” economist, but active in their union. Likewise, I assure you that most “multi-ethic studies” professors have retirement funds of some sort of another, and probably want to live comfortably.

    I don’t really know how you figure that the “courts” are “liberal” or “conservative.” But, I understand that you have been practicing for much longer than I have (I think you said that you were admitted in 1986) and can accurately predict every decision on the basis of politics.

    Finally, I am unsure whether admitting, on a non-matriculated basis some Arab is “liberal” or “conservative.” It probably can be argued either way. Whatever the case, I don’t think that he really brings any “diversity” to Yale, as he is not publishing or teaching, and I don’t even think that he lives in the dorms.

  • clarification needed from Igbukara
  • Posted by Larry on April 3, 2006 at 4:10pm EDT
  • Mr. Igbukara, Your post is entitled “Why So Many Hate America,” but it does not actually explain why anyone actually hates America. Instead it assumes that all members of the Talliban hate America, and that it is silly for Americans to defend their existence or presence in various parts of the US.

    You also did not explain why you think that people in colleges “hate” America. In my country (USA) people frequently express dissatisfaction with government policies, yet prefer the American system of government to others. Indeed, one might say that complaining about the government is a tradition in the US. It is as ingrained in the culture and psyche of Americans as Apple Pie.

    Perhaps you wish to revisit your strongly worded post and simply disagree with people that think that people should not be admitted as non-matriculated students based on their former politics. While I am not sure that I agree with Yale’s decision, the posters here have advanced many reasons why Yale, or the entire country might benefit from his attendance, and you have not explained how taking such a position demonstrates “hatred” of America. Indeed, even those that take a narrow view of the First Amendment concede that expressing hatred of the government and even the entire country is protected.

    Oh, in case you are wondering, I love America and hate other countries. I won an award for these traits, and they may not be questioned.

  • Posted by Monideepa on April 3, 2006 at 6:05pm EDT
  • Bad, so it seems now the argument is only that this guy should've been denied admission because he doesn't meet the criteria (and there are others who do). On that, I already pointed out that this question is for Yale to decide. There are plenty of people each year who are denied admissions, and one can't say with certainty that each and every decision is fair. I don't see why this particular case should be singled out. If there's any doubt about the fairness of Yale's decisions then it should be taken up by the concerned people in a comprehensive manner. You should make up your mind on what it is you're arguing. Should he be denied admission because of his Taleban affiliations or should be denied admission because he is not qualified? If it is the first, you're wrong. If it is the second, stop cribbing and leave that to Yale.

  • Posted by Gabriel Hanna , Graduate student at Washington State University on April 3, 2006 at 6:05pm EDT
  • So, if the ex-Taliban spokesman can come to Yale, and the administration is fine with it, and so many faculty and student communities of Yale are also fine with it...

    They would be fine with neo-Nazis?

    They would be fine with former members of the South African apartheid government?

    They would be fine with Fred Phelps or his family?

    Not one word of protest?

    This is a man who went around the world defending and making propaganda for a government that cut the fingers off women for wearing nail polish, did not allow women to be eduucated, and executed gay men for being gay. His government actually did these actual things. They weren't done metaphorically. Walls were actually collapsed onto gay men. Women were actually beheaded in a soccer field.

    Have you lost your minds?

    Some of you have been disingenuous to point out that he is not actually a student. They conveniently forget to mention that it is not difficult for him to become a full fledged student, and that he has already applied to do so, and that the Yale administration will not say whether he will be approved or not.

  • The Elite Ex-aliban
  • Posted by Marty on April 4, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • Several commenters write that Yale's academic and/or admission decisions should not be influenced by politics, by way of defending the decision to admit Hashemi.

    They have it backwards. It is abundantly clear that Hashemi WAS admitted for political reasons--just look at the Yale administration's justification for admitting him.--in preference to dozens (at least) with better academic or moral claims for consideration.

    Yale is already highly politicized, as it seems are most universities. I think it is unfortunate that this is the case, but the real issue is the near-monopoly of leftist post-modern attitudes in the upper levels of these universities. The argument can then evolve in two directions: political balance (i.e., the right wants in on the game, too), or actual de-politicization and a return to genuine standards of scholarship and free, unfettered inquiry instead of speech codes and taboo subjects for discussion or research.

    In my opinion, the latter would be far preferrable, but there does not seem to be much of an organized constituency for that, so we are left with a fight over political spoils.

    Nice.

  • Posted by Larry on April 4, 2006 at 10:55am EDT
  • Mary, How is this post-modern? (Do you even know what post-modernism is) What proof do you have that he was admitted as a non-matriculated student for political reasons, when a similar-situated New Havenite would not have been.

    Ms. Hanna, I don’t want to be the one to break it to you, but 1) Neo-Nazis attend college; 2) Fred Phelps’ family have graduate degrees (mostly from top tier law schools, I might add); and 3) members of the South African government are probably too old to go back to school (but they, like most South Africans can probably argue that they were changing things from the inside). But, you are proposing something very dangerous. You are asking that people be excluded from schools based on their political beliefs. This means that people that are pro-war (or anti-war) could be excluded in the US, or even people who don’t like the president. Moreover, American universities generally generate positive feelings about life in the US, and the American way of life – and you seek to prevent this message from spreading to even our enemies.

  • Posted by Gabriel Hanna on April 4, 2006 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Larry, I am not advocating that anyone be not be admitted to a school for their political beliefs.

    Hashemi doesn't merely have unpleasant "political beliefs", as you call it. He was member of a government that was responsible for atrocities and oppression. He got a paycheck from them. He traveled the world lying and spinning for them. He was their Ribbentrop. Unlike Fred Phelps, he aided killers and oppressors directly--and they are continuing their work to this very day.

    Yale has rejected students who have admitted to shoplifiting, but propaganda work for people who pull women's fingernails out for polishing their nails is not enough apparently.

    And if you are going to tell me that students and faculty at Yale, who get worked up over single sex bathrooms, would have no problem with the administration admitting Fred Phelps, it is hard for me to see that as anything other than a lie.

    Academics, like anyone else, want to circle the wagons when they are criticised by outsiders. This is understandable. But it is not justified at the cost of our moral clarity.

    Yale has no moral obligation to educate terrorists or tyrants or people who do their work.

  • Hey Larry...
  • Posted by Mark DeAngelis on April 4, 2006 at 2:20pm EDT
  • Larry, with all due respect, I would like to share with you the description of the qualifications sought for the Yale non-degree program to which Hashemi applied and is now enrolled. Yale's website reads:

    "Since 1977, the Eli Whitney and the Non-Degree student program have offered non-resident students the opportunity to enroll in most Yale College courses for credit. Students have used these programs to complete a Bachelor's degree; to qualify for graduate or professional school; to launch, advance, or change careers; or simply to enrich their personal lives.

    Yale seeks applicants whose academic background, work experience and community involvement are particularly suited to study at Yale.

    All candidates must present evidence of high academic potential, maturity, and clear motivation for their proposed course of study."

    Setting aside the moral and politics issues surrounding the situation, can you honestly say that Hashemi's academic background and work experience/community involvement (snicker) make him qualified for a spot in this program? Granted, the wording is vague and there is room for interpretation, but it defies logic to think that this guy's background meets the criteria set forth by the founders of this non-degree program at Yale.

    I am a Yale graduate, not particularly poltical, and I am deeply ashamed and embarrassed of my alma mater. If this isn't a case of liberalism gone awry I'm not sure what is. -Mark

  • reply to Mark
  • Posted by Larry on April 5, 2006 at 8:20am EDT
  • Mark, Since you concede that the criteria for admission of non-degree students is vague, and there is no evidence that this guy was treated any differently, than, say, a New Havenite, I can’t see how you think that this Yale’s decision was political in nature.

    I am sure that all of us, without exception, have disapproved of something that our alma maters was. But, I think that your disapproval, in this case, lacks any specifics regarding Yale’s intent (which, I am guessing was more of an oversight, than a political act), is more of a reaction to someone whose politics you don’t like.

    If you can come back with some specifics regarding Yale's decision-making (e.g. the president said "We wouldn't normally admit Arabs with little education, but because he was a member of the Taliban and we are all liberals") I will agree with you.

  • Posted by Mark DeAngelis on April 5, 2006 at 1:28pm EDT
  • Larry,
    in all seriousness, "no evidence that this guy was treated any differently than a New Havenite?" Are you kidding?

    I assume you read the original piece by Chip Brown in the NYT Magazine, right? It featured a quote from Dean Richard Shaw, who since has been kind enough to leave Yale, but apparently was the sole decision maker on admitting Hashemi, who stated:

    "When I first met him I was a little anxious," recalls Shaw, who last year became dean of undergraduate admissions and financial aid at Stanford. "My perception was, 'It's the enemy!' But the interview with him was one of the most interesting I've ever had. I walked away with a sense: Whoa! This is a person to be reckoned with and who could educate us about the world."

    That doesn't sound like an "oversight" to me, as you suggest. Dean Shaw later went on to say that he had already missed a similar type candidate to Harvard and did not want it to happen again. So in a sense you're right that I don't have any concrete "evidence" that this guy was treated any differently than a New Havenite who's spouse happens to be a Yale graduate student let's say (which incidentally is the reason this program was established in the first place) and would like to take some courses. But what I do have is a quote from the Dean of Admissions himself stating essentially that he thought it would be pretty cool to bring this ex-Taliban guy to Yale to "educate us about the world". The wording on Yale's website as to the qualifications for the program may be vague but they do state pretty clearly that this is an ACADEMIC program and that the applicant must display ACADEMIC potential. It stretches credulity to think that the equivalent of a fourth-grade education meets even this vague criteria at school like Yale. In fact, no one, the University included, has tried to argue that Hashemi actually met the qualifications. Wonder why?

    While I'm trying to be open-minded here (honestly) I can't help but conclude that ex-Dean Shaw "bent" the rules of the program a tad to accomdate Mr. Hashemi. If you see it differently, that's your perogative but I couldn't disagree more. In fact, Yale has said as much to me privately since I've voiced my concerns. Nothing like the ability to find a scapegoat!

    And by the way, I do disagree with the decision on political grounds as well since in my opinion it was a political decision by the University to begin with.

    So do you agree with me now (why do I think I already know the answer to that question)?

  • closer to agreement
  • Posted by Larry on April 6, 2006 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I guess I don’t agree with you, simply because it seems that the criteria are so vague at Yale (which is famous for vague criteria) that simply the “coolness” of a candidate is what pushes them over the top. But, at some level we agree. This guy was admitted because someone thought it would be cool. My point is that “cool” is all one needs to be under a, quite reasonable reading of the rules, and no tradition of interpreting them differently.

    Whether “coolness” is political or not is anybody’s guess. I am sure for “real” students “coolness” does include political activity, and a “cool” family.

    I wonder, in this case, and in general, whether similar admits at Yale are able to obtain the same inflated grades that other undergrads are. If he really had a fourth-grade education, he would surely flunk all of his classes, and your credibility would have additional support. If he passed (even with a C or D), it would mean that either, this guy is really smart for someone with a fourth-grader, or Yale’s grading system is worthless. But, as I understand it, we will with to find out.

  • Point
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on April 6, 2006 at 6:15pm EDT
  • My earlier comment was lost...

    I don't know where we're even getting the fourth grade education from - last I heard he had only three years of education, and that was in a madrassas in a Pakistani refugee camp.

    Part of the reason this is so perplexing is the sheer fact that Yale apparently doesn't care that without their admission, he couldn't have gotten a student visa and would not be in the country.

  • Posted by Radha on April 7, 2006 at 10:55am EDT
  • This guy is no deserving student, but the "spokesman" for the Taliban, who claims he "didn't know" what was going on with the women in his country. How on earth is he going to "educate" us about the world? As a Yalie, why on earth do I want the kind of education that he can offer?

    When I think of the crimes that have been committed against the women in Afghanistan - I wonder why we would want to admit this guy - to tell us about his point of view? What point of view condones stoning a women to death in the middle of a football field with a bunch of people watching? Why is he worthy of admission?

    If Yalies want an "education" and a point of view of the world, why the heck don't they admit one of those Afghani women who studied in secret. Was it that they were less qualified than this man?
    Yale basically is making a statement that it is OK to admit someone who is the spokesman for an organization that perpetrated terrible injustices against a country - just because Harvard shouldn't get their hands on him...

  • Deadly Misinformation
  • Posted by Anna Stirgwolt on May 5, 2006 at 10:05am EDT
  • Yesterday it was publicized in the New York Times that Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the Taliban ambassador turned student at Yale, applied for admission as a degree-seeking student. As an environmental engineering Ph.D student concerned with human rights issues, I strongly oppose any further admission of Mr. Hashemi to the Yale student population, faculty or community at large. As a woman who has the privilege and opportunity to pursue an advanced degree, I am compelled to challenge the potential admittance of a man who hid the intellectual oppression of the Afghan women. The position which I take in this debate is a personal opinion which reflects no organization.

    I understand that it is important to preserve a society of open ideas and provocative beliefs in the university environment. I feel it is irresponsible, however, to play any role in further elevating the status and credibility of individuals who have worked to promote and disguise policies of oppression, torture, murder, and other human rights violations. Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi used misinformation repeatedly in support of such Taliban policies in his role as ambassador for the regime. Hashemi told crowds at USC in 2001 that the Taliban had in fact accomplished a return to human rights stating, “The fifth achievement that we have, but it’s a little controversial, some of our friends will not know, is the restoration of human rights.”

    He continued on in this speech saying, “So we don’t have any problem with women’s education. We have said that we want education and we will have education whether or not we are under anybody’s pressure.” All this, during a time in the regime when womens’ education was limited to studying the Quran up until age 8.

    In a News Hour debate in March of 2001 Hashemi defended the destruction of the historic Buddhist statues saying, “First I should say we respect all religions. We are not against any religion, and this act has not happened against any kind of discrimination to any kind of religion”. This statement is from the envoy of a regime that committed mass killings against the Hazara, an ethnically and religiously distinct group.

    At the USC debate Hashemi also addressed the killings of Iranian diplomats, “there was some seven, or eight, nine Iranians, who were actually not diplomats, who were actually military advisors to their puppets in Afghanistan. So and we didn’t kill them in diplomatic mission”. These deaths had already been condemned by the UN General Assembly on the 12th of February 1999 as killings of diplomatic and consular personnel which constituted violations on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

    Hashemi’s past statements misrepresent the reality of the regime he represented as top diplomat to the west. He has failed to fully renounce his own actions and the regime, or admit the extent of their actions. In his recent interview with Tim Reid which was in the London Times, Hashemi missed the opportunity to admit and renounce these Taliban actions. When asked about the public executions in Kabul stadium he instead states, “That was all Vice and Virtue Stuff. There were also executions happening in Texas.”

    I sincerely hope that in the future Hashemi works for positive change, but at this point he shows that he lacks ability to adequately address the horrors of a regime of which he was an active member from before the 1996 take over of Kabul until the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

    Education as a road to opportunity, and a university diploma is a privilege that adds to credibility. What are the opportunities for Hashemi and what will this newfound, “credibility” be used towards? As a Yale student I don’t want to see the name of the university add to the credibility of someone who used misinformation so effectively in obscuring the truths behind a deadly regime.

    As a Yale student I am unwilling to “enrich” public debate by supporting a student who misled the west on the oppression of his own people. It may seem like mere debate from the comfort of New Haven, but across the world it was a thinly veiled reality of torture, massacre, lack of access to education, decreased health, and unjust punishment that the Afghan people suffered through for years.