Yale to Clint Taylor: “Are You Retarded?” (UPDATED)
You may remember Yale alum Clinton W. Taylor’s campaign to have fake nails sent to Yale as a protest of the university’s admission of an unrepentant Taliban official. Clint’s campaign has prompted a sober and thoughtful response from a Yale alumni relations official, who asked Clint whether he is “retarded.”
UPDATE: According to this John Fund column (h/t DRJ), the guy claims he was acting in his personal capacity. However, he seems to have gotten access to some personal information about the donor records of Clint and his co-crusader, and nobody can quite explain how:
Mr. Surovov [the assistant director of giving, who had sent the e-mail to Clint] made clear that even though he had used Yale equipment to launch his anonymous attack he acted solely in his personal capacity. When I asked how he had known the giving records of the two alumni, he insisted he had gotten them from public records. Despite repeated requests, he did not explain how he had obtained Ms. Bookstaber’s private email address and her maiden name.
. . . .
[Yale spokesman Tom] Conroy said he didn’t believe most donor information was a public record, but said he would have to confirm that for me. Yesterday, 48 hours after I first asked for reaction to the Surovov emails, Mr. Conroy notified me that Yale administrators were not available and the university would be making no comment.
Interesting.
Urgent Message:
Earth to Yale, Earth to Yale, STOP. You can’t fix a problem, unless you admit to having one, STOP.
Your decision to admit a Taliban PR flack is the moral equivalent of having Baghdad Bob write for the WaPo, STOP.
Your decision disgraced a once fine institution, STOP. Yale has become the butt of jokes, and a subject of scorn. STOP.
Hello, Hello, is anyone there? STOP.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 3/13/2006 @ 8:15 amI don’t know why anyone would be surprised. The greatest problem that I have seen with some of our leftist friends (although, oddly enough, not the ones who comment here) is that they believe their political adversaries are not just wrong, but are stupid as well. For the alumni relations director who wrote Mr Taylor, Mr Taylor probably is mentally deficient — because he doesn’t agree with the leftist position.
It’s a comforting tactic, I suppose, for those who use it: if you can simply dismiss your opponents as stupid or retarded or evil, then you don’t have to do the harder work of actually examining their positions.
Dana (3e4784) — 3/13/2006 @ 8:29 amYa. This doesn’t happen the other way ’round.
actus (6234ee) — 3/13/2006 @ 8:46 amYale = an arrogance bordering on psychosis.
PCD (9067b1) — 3/13/2006 @ 8:50 amFor purely personal reasons, I’m glad this happened at Yale. One of my family members turned down admission to Yale last year in favor of another institution. I was sad about that decision, thinking Yale is such a fine institution and what a shame it is to pass up that opportunity. Now I can rest secure in the knowledge that Yale isn’t that great and, better yet, not one penny of my money is going there.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/13/2006 @ 8:54 amFollowing the link, I notice that Clint’s e-mail writer was not writing in his capacity as a Yale alumni relations official, but as a private person. Surely this is a distinction which Patterico, who posts a disclaimer that his blog-musings are not those of his employer, can appreciate.
Patterico’s headline is fundamentally dishonest. Should I have expected better?
[I missed the part where the guy said he was writing only as a private person — because there is no such statement in the linked column. I saw no disclaimer such as I have on my site. When contacted, the guy reaffirmed his statement and said he didn’t regret it. Different situation. — Patterico]
[UPDATE: DRJ’s link shows that the guy claims to have acted in his personal capacity — but raises questions about how he got donor information on Clint and the other person behind the nail-mail drive. I have updated the post to reflect all of this. — Patterico]
m.croche (85f703) — 3/13/2006 @ 9:04 amm.croche –
You might want to read this follow-up article by John Fund. The emailer, a Yale Assistant Director of giving, apparently used his position to gain access to the personal giving records, email addresses, and (in one case) the maiden name of the Yale graduates who organized the Nail Yale campaign.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/13/2006 @ 9:31 amI find this tactic more humorous, one yale alum calling another retarded? It not only derides the second’s degree but the first as well… classic.
Mad Hatty (de5fcb) — 3/13/2006 @ 10:33 amThere’s a yalie at my law school. Headed the local federalist society, then some sort of republican lawyer’s club. I was never too impressed with the guy. Then he came out swinging for harriet miers. What an idiot.
actus (ebc508) — 3/13/2006 @ 10:36 amDana – I suspect that leftist commenters on conservative sites are by definition less likely to think that all of their opponents are stupid than those who do not; after all, if you think that all conservatives are stupid, then there is no point in trying to discuss things with them, unless you enjoy showing off your superiority. It’s therefore not so odd that those of us on the left who comment here don’t think our political adversaries are stupid; that’s part of why we comment here.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/13/2006 @ 10:59 amActus – of course it happens the other way around. Insisting that your political adversaries are stupid (or immoral) is one of the most common reflexive responses. It’s one of the reasons why preventing online discussion from degenerating into something like LGF or Kos is so hard.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/13/2006 @ 11:01 amGood point, Aphrael. Not to butter up our host, but but the civility of this blog is exceptional.
nk (8214ee) — 3/13/2006 @ 12:25 pmThere’s an interesting remark about Taliban chap Sayed Hashemi by a self-described Yale feminist student on her blog. Quoted in Fund’s earlier article and in the comments to the blog post Talking Vaginally, Della Sentilles says:
“As a white American feminist, I do not feel comfortable making statements or judgments about other cultures, especially statements that suggest one culture is more sexist and repressive than another.”
Visit the post for a refreshing yet amusing list of the statements or judgements that the white American feminist is willing to make.
Unlike Mr. Hashemi, I don’t think Ms. Sentilles and her co-blogger are probationary first-year students. The blog is the result rather than the imposing challenge of a Yale education.
AMac (b6037f) — 3/13/2006 @ 12:31 pmActus wrote:
It does, but it seems to me that it doesn’t happen with quite the same frequency.
Dana (3e4784) — 3/13/2006 @ 2:06 pmAs Kingman Brewster would have said, I am skeptical of the ability of a Taliban official to get a fair trial anywhere outside of Yale.
Or maybe he would have said, This Taliban official’s critics are retarded.
This crap has been going on for years at Yale.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (dfa1f1) — 3/13/2006 @ 3:12 pmAphrael writes: It’s therefore not so odd that those of us on the left who comment here don’t think our political adversaries are stupid; that’s part of why we comment here.
Indeed. I would add that this is also a relatively unique conservative blog in that comments of opposing views are permitted and actually addressed, AND there are less self-styled ‘moon-bats’ and ‘wing-nuts’ here as a general rule. This is the ONLY conservative blog I ever make appearances on, and while some of his guests get a little nutty on both sides, I appreciate Patterico’s even-handed open-mindedness.
—
I think this is a “Yale” issue only in that this tool obviously works for Yale in a capacity that allows him access to the donor records (which would be anyone with access to a computer in the alumni office). Clearly, it was a damn stupid thing for him to do; abuse his job privileges for personal reasons (i.e. irritation). It is flagrantly inappropriate, and if he holds onto his job, I’ll be surprised. (I teach special education, which means I have access to some very classified records of my students’. If I ever took advantage of having that information at my fingertips, I would lose my job in a heart-beat. So should this guy.
Having said that, I don’t think it’s fair to hold Yale accountable for the ill-conceived actions of this tool–any more than it would be fair to sue the school district at large for an error on a document that’s my fault. Fire me, then move on. These things happen.
Tool never claimed to send the email from an official standpoint. It’s unthinkable that anyone else would have overseen that email and okayed it if they had had the opportunity. I’m sure that all the tort-reformers here see the logic here: the larger entity simply can’t be held accountable for the dumbass actions of just one guy who works there.
Tom (15e81e) — 3/13/2006 @ 4:50 pm“What an idiot.”
Hmm, maybe Dana should rethink the characterization of leftist commenters here…at least one…
sharon (fecb65) — 3/13/2006 @ 5:06 pmHmm, maybe Dana should rethink the characterization of leftist commenters here…at least one…
Please give it a rest, Sharon. Nobody’s perfect here, maybe not even you.
Tom (fefa50) — 3/13/2006 @ 5:20 pmDoes anyone want to ask how Hashemi got a student visa from, yes, believe it or not, the Department of Homeland Security. Did he give up his fellow Talibanists? Or is it just another bureaucratic SNAFU like the student visas of the 9/11 hijackers?
nk (d7a872) — 3/13/2006 @ 7:22 pmThe NYT article that broke the story mentioned him being interviewed by the US in afghanistan. He turned himself into them and they must have decided he wasn’t that big of a threat.
actus (6234ee) — 3/13/2006 @ 7:41 pmnk:
Not to butter up our host, but but the civility of this blog is exceptional.
Tom:
Indeed. I would add that this is also a relatively unique conservative blog in that comments of opposing views are permitted and actually addressed, AND there are less self-styled ‘moon-bats’ and ‘wing-nuts’ here as a general rule. This is the ONLY conservative blog I ever make appearances on, and while some of his guests get a little nutty on both sides, I appreciate Patterico’s even-handed open-mindedness.
Thanks to both of you. I try to cultivate reasonable lefties. I wish I had more of them commenting here.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/13/2006 @ 8:40 pmI encourage everyone to visit the website linked by AMac in comment 13. AMac and Della Sentilles are having an interesting dialogue.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 3/13/2006 @ 8:59 pm“Please give it a rest, Sharon. Nobody’s perfect here, maybe not even you.”
Tom,
It has nothing to do with my being perfect. It was an observation that the first comment Actus made was to call people “idiots.” I don’t call that being civil, but, hey, if you think that’s asking for perfection, then too bad.
sharon (fecb65) — 3/14/2006 @ 5:41 amRe #16 “…the larger entity simply can’t be held accountable for the dumbass actions of just one guy who works there.”
Care to argue that point when the dumbass employee of a large corporation is accused of unwanted sexual advances to females under his supervision?
Black Jack (2f00c2) — 3/14/2006 @ 8:11 amA salute to Patterico…
I’ve been out and about the blogosphere lately. At one pretty prominent liberal site that I usually like for its mix of substance and banter, I got into a many-way exchange that was interesting on a provocative post by a guest blogger. But I made the mistake of thinking I was on this blog – when the discussion got a little challenging, my pointed, considered, and even-tempered post was nixed and the thread was shut down.
The O.P. was intentionally provocative, or was deluded enough to think he was spouting gospel – yet a good discussion (between various shades of lefties) was shut down presumably for raising too many challenges to the views of the hosts.
The experience sucked, and I don’t want to do them the credit of even visiting anymore. What a difference integrity makes (or in many cases, could make).
biwah (f5ca22) — 3/14/2006 @ 8:53 amNot people. But someone I know. And you dont.
actus (ebc508) — 3/14/2006 @ 9:43 amOur honored host wrote:
Hey, I’m the one who sent BluBonnet here! Doesn’t she help your total? 🙂
Dana (9f37aa) — 3/14/2006 @ 6:27 pmbiwah wrote:
Oh, come on now, you can do better than that; to which pretty prominent liberal site did you refer?
Dana (9f37aa) — 3/14/2006 @ 6:29 pmThe following is from WSJ.com Opinion Journal
Friday, 3/24/06
Foreign Exchange:
Why did Yale slam the door on Afghan women?
A statement from Yale University, defending its decision to admit former Taliban spokesman Ramatullah Hashemi, explained that he had “escaped the wreckage of Afghanistan.” To anyone who is aware of the Taliban’s barbaric treatment of the Afghan people, such words are offensive–as if Mr. Hashemi were not himself part of the wrecking crew. It is even more disturbing to learn that, while Mr. Hashemi sailed through Yale’s admissions process, the school turned down the opportunity to enroll women who really did escape the wreckage of Afghanistan.
In 2002, Yale received a letter from Paula Nirschel, the founder of the Initiative to Educate Afghan Women. The purpose of the organization, begun in that year, was to match young women in post-Taliban Afghanistan to U.S. colleges, where they could pursue a degree. Ms. Nirschel asked Yale if it wanted to award a spot in its next entering class to an Afghan woman. Yale declined.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008135
Black Jack (d8da01) — 3/24/2006 @ 10:07 am