4/3/2006

17 Responses to “Nail Yale Update”

1. […] Joel is blogging at Xrlq’s and Xrlq is blogging at Patterico’s. […]

   SayUncle » I’m confused (9b413a) — 4/3/2006 @ 5:27 am

   
   

2. Are there no women in Afghanistan deserving of special attention by Yale? or Harvard? Perhaps I missed the story on those attendees.

   Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 4/3/2006 @ 7:02 am

   
   

3. Are there no women in Afghanistan deserving of special attention by Yale? or Harvard? Perhaps I missed the story on those attendees.

   Why all the identity politics?

   actus (ebc508) — 4/3/2006 @ 9:15 am

   
   

4. Harry,

   See Patterico’s post of 3/13/2006, Yale to Clint Taylor: “Are You Retarded?” (Updated)

   My comment #29 addresses your question and was based on the linked article.

   http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008135

   Black Jack (d8da01) — 4/3/2006 @ 9:52 am

   
   

5. Black Jack, thanks. I most liked skimmed that opinionjournal article and it stuck in my mind. Your point was well made.

   actus, “identity politics”? I’m not particularly concerned with the sex or race of any particular student. I am particularly concerned with why Yale would allow a “former” (maybe) member of the Taliban to attend their prestigious institution when there are clearly far better choices among the population that truly did suffer under the Taliban’s rule. And of course it seems to me that there is more than just a little lack of consistency coming from the Ivy League here, given their normal stance on such things.

   From the cited article:

   Mrs. Nirschel, who has been a homemaker for most of the past three decades, set up the program to find suitable college-ready candidates and pay their travel expenses to the U.S. But the colleges themselves were asked to cover tuition, room and board. Mrs. Nirschel did not want the Initiative to Educate Afghan Women to be treated as a chance to “escape.” The program requires that its students return to Afghanistan each summer to work for an organization involved in rebuilding the country. And they must go home at the end of their four years in the U.S.

   This program asks for tuition, room and board and there are … wow! … 20 actual students attending various American universtities. Not a single student won a scholarship at any Ivy League school, at least as far as I can tell. But we do have our “friend” from the Taliban seeking full time admission to Yale. Just seems pretty lopsided to me – nothing to do with “identity politics” – just basic fairness and common sense. We do care about providing the same opportunity for women as for members of the Taliban, don’t we?

   I’m also left wondering about the “suitability”, academically speaking of course, of this one candidate for admission, late of the Taliban.

   Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 4/3/2006 @ 11:42 am

   
   

6. … most likely …

   Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 4/3/2006 @ 11:51 am

   
   

7. actus, “identity politics”? I’m not particularly concerned with the sex or race of any particular student.

   Then no need to ask for afghani women. Great!

   Not a single student won a scholarship at any Ivy League school, at least as far as I can tell.

   Yeah. It looks like they didn’t turn over their admissions decisions to a homemakers program.

   I’m also left wondering about the “suitability”, academically speaking of course, of this one candidate for admission, late of the Taliban.

   From the NYT article that broke the story it looked like he was getting along well, academically. He didn’t seem to know much about campus culture, and how much you can slack on your assignments.

   actus (ebc508) — 4/3/2006 @ 11:54 am

   
   

8. Yeah. It looks like they didn’t turn over their admissions decisions to a homemakers program.

   Nor should they – nice false dichotomy though. I’m curious which aspect of the “homemaker’s” program you find distasteful. Is it that it is a mere “homemaker” who came up with this excellent idea? Is it that she targeted the scholarship program to the singular group of people in Afghanistan most oppressed by the Taliban regime of which this “gentleman” was a participant? Or is it that only the elite admissions experts, who had already come up with the brilliant idea to admit a “former” (we are assured) member of the Taliban, just couldn’t bring themselves to admit that it was a good idea that deserved at least consideration for serious follow-through.

   Then no need to ask for afghani women. Great!

   I see you’re content to ignore the complete context of my remarks and pursue only your notion of what I’m saying by cherry picking from my comments. So much for a serious conversation I suppose.

   Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 4/3/2006 @ 1:34 pm

   
   

9. “former” (we are assured)

   Former enough to be not only turned free by the US, but also admitted into the US.

   Or is it that only the elite admissions experts, who had already come up with the brilliant idea to admit a “former” (we are assured) member of the Taliban, just couldn’t bring themselves to admit that it was a good idea that deserved at least consideration for serious follow-through.

   I have no idea how seriously they took the former homemakers idea to have a ‘scholarship’ where someone pays for flight and then Yale pays. I have no idea how seriously they took the offer of having a 3rd party pick people based on their gender to come to Yale with Yale picking up the tab.

   It seems like very few colleges did accept the program. And I’m sure not all 2000 are ‘elite.’

   actus (ebc508) — 4/3/2006 @ 1:48 pm

   
   

10. Obviously I’m not making my point very effectively.

    More thoughts here from Mr. Taylor’s second article on the subject.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 4/3/2006 @ 2:15 pm

    
    

11. Let’s see, Yale has decided to divest from investments that are Sudan-related.

    Yale also excludes ROTC from campus (and has for many years) and, at least until the recent SC decision, did not allow military recruiters on campus. Not sufficiently “diverse” perhaps.

    Perhaps if the military could find a “former” member of the Taliban to become a recruiter …

    The following courtesy of John Fund (citation above):

    Yale officials apparently now wish more than anything else to “move on” from the Taliban controversy. Mr. Hashemi has been silent for five weeks; his application to become a full-fledged sophomore next fall sits on Mr. Levin’s desk. Last Wednesday the Yale student government debated a resolution that would have ratified the admissions policy guidelines set down in 1967 by Kingman Brewster, its late president. In relevant part, those guidelines state that “a demonstrated failure of moral sensitivity or regard for the dignity of others cannot be redeemed by allegations that the young man is extremely ‘interesting.’ “

    But even though the resolution didn’t even mention Mr. Hashemi directly, there was no vote and further debate was postponed. Austin Broussard, a junior and one of its authors, says several student officials at the meeting called for “tolerance” and giving Mr. Hashemi “the benefit of the doubt.” But Mr. Hashemi’s lack of repentance, followed by silence, does not merit such a charitable interpretation.

    No “tolerance” for ROTC or military recruiters (not counting forced “tolerance” of course). No “giving ROTC the benefit of the doubt.”

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 4/3/2006 @ 2:37 pm

    
    

12. at least until the recent SC decision, did not allow military recruiters on campus. Not sufficiently “diverse” perhaps.

    I don’t know about ROTC, but the recruiters at the law school is pretty simple. Most law schools have rules against the use of their resources by employers that wish to use the resources of the school in order to discriminate against the students.

    I’m sure Hashemi is, for example, bound by Yale rules when he eats at the Kosher dining hall. I don’t know what kinds of speech codes Yale has.

    Perhaps if the military could find a “former” member of the Taliban to become a recruiter

    They could just instead threaten to shut down the entire university. Thats what the solomon amendment is for.

    But Mr. Hashemi’s lack of repentance, followed by silence, does not merit such a charitable interpretation.

    The Karzai administration invited him to work for them. Is that enough of a sign of repentance, of turnaround?

    actus (6234ee) — 4/3/2006 @ 3:13 pm

    
    

13. Actus, bugger off with your sudden love for the Karzai administration. all I heard about Afghanistan in 2004 was opium, corruption, no better than the taliban, Bush has messed this one up. Now you’re holding them up as some good housekeeping seal of approval.

    Like Baathists in Iraq, I don’t like having them in there but there’s a shortage of qualified people to run things otherwise. Former Nazis went to work in Germany’s government as well. There’s been enough revealed about the Yaliban’s character that Karzai’s endorsement doesn’t change anything.

    See Dubya (823a78) — 4/3/2006 @ 3:30 pm

    
    

14. Actus, bugger off with your sudden love for the Karzai administration. all I heard about Afghanistan in 2004 was opium, corruption, no better than the taliban, Bush has messed this one up. Now you’re holding them up as some good housekeeping seal of approval.

    I’m sure they’re awful. But one complaint about the guy is that Yale should have brought in someone working to better the country. So i’m sure its interesting that he’s been deemed worthy of joining that effort.

    actus (6234ee) — 4/3/2006 @ 3:34 pm

    
    

15. actus said, “Yeah. It looks like they didn’t turn over their admissions decisions to a homemakers program.”

    Mrs Nirschel is the wife of a college president, and founder of the Initiative to Educate Afghan Women. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Why do you put her down with the “homemaker” label?

    Her efforts are sincere and commendable, and for you to belittle her shows how petty and wrongheaded you can be. Disrespect for women, even homemakers, is unacceptable.

    Black Jack (d8da01) — 4/3/2006 @ 3:49 pm

    
    

16. They could just instead threaten to shut down the entire university. Thats what the solomon amendment is for.

    Not in my understanding. Unless I’m mistaken, the Solomon amendment simply requires that if schools take public funds that they are to allow military recruiters to recruit on campus. Fairly simple and straightforward I’d say and the SC seems to agree. A bit of hyperbole on your part, perhaps?

    The Karzai administration invited him to work for them. Is that enough of a sign of repentance, of turnaround?

    Don’t know. Perhaps if the Yale student government had actually finished their debate and voted instead of tabling the issue we would at least know what they thought about the question though.

    And in the long run I suppose we’ll see whether Yale alumini think the question is important.

    I don’t know about ROTC, but the recruiters at the law school is pretty simple. Most law schools have rules against the use of their resources by employers that wish to use the resources of the school in order to discriminate against the students.

    The first answer is, to quote Inspector Clouseau: “not any more”.

    ROTC has not been on the Yale campus since 1971. The reason is that Yale requires that the military allow anyone wishing to terminate their involvement with ROTC for any reason to receive an honorable discharge without exception. This was simply the Yale administration’s way of prohibiting ROTC on campus without actually doing so. By placing an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the military that they couldn’t possibly agree to, I would argue that ROTC was thereby “forced” to leave. They have not been asked back.

    It would be quite off topic to re-argue the military discrimination point so I’ll politely defer.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 4/3/2006 @ 3:56 pm

    
    

17. Why do you put her down with the “homemaker” label?

    That’s the label the WSJ gave her. I’m sure its uplifting, however, to label her as some important man’s wife.

    Her efforts are sincere and commendable, and for you to belittle her shows how petty and wrongheaded you can be.

    No doubt they’re sincere and commendable. I just don’t read much into yale or thousands of other schools turning down her offer of free flights to campus in exchange for the schools picking up the rest of the tab.

    A bit of hyperbole on your part, perhaps?

    Not really no. Most universities in this country would be shut down if they had no public funds. Stafford loans, research grants, etc… This is a lot of money.

    The first answer is, to quote Inspector Clouseau: “not any more”.

    A lot still have those rules. The question is, how well will they follow them.

    actus (6234ee) — 4/3/2006 @ 5:12 pm