New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 14, 2006

Cathy Young asks whether "multiculturalism" has to entail embracing apologists for oppressive, misogynistic theocracies.

Comments

Jeff P.|3.14.06 @ 11:17AM|#

Hmm. I once told an earthy-crunchly hippy liberal that several tribes of native americans were known to punish infidelity and homosexual behavior with a nasty death. Her head almost exploded.
Taliban apologists have a leg up at Ivy Schools, mainly because most of the professors have been vocal against western culture for decades.

|3.14.06 @ 11:31AM|#

I didn't know that Universities were supposed to discriminate on the basis of belief. Actions are one thing, and if this guy engaged in the public execution, I'd be hesitant. But, to seek to exclude him only because of his background seems as oppresive as the regime to which we seem to object to.

My large public university had racists, communists, anarchists, and, I argue, fascists. I don't think any of these people should have been denied admission- they made my experience rich, and I believe, four years of a generally liberal, open-minded environment had some positive influences these folks. Just like the country kid who assumed all homosexuals were sex offenders and soon mellowed, the theory of free speech and a marketplace of ideas allows for a taliban apoligist to get his just like the other theories now resting on the "ash heap of history."

R C Dean|3.14.06 @ 11:37AM|#

But, to seek to exclude him only because of his background seems as oppresive as the regime to which we seem to object to.

Talk about your glossing over and your moral relativism.

His "background" is as a very active enabler and member of a brutally oppressive regime with an atrocious human rights record. A little early in the thread to go all Godwin on you, but its probably fair to call him the Goebbels of the Taliban.

And since when is denying someone admission to a university because of their "background" at all (a) unusual (b) wrong or (c) comparable in any way to being a brutally oppressive regime with an atrocious human rights record.

|3.14.06 @ 11:38AM|#

Thank you Kyle. What exactly is Young proposing here?

|3.14.06 @ 11:43AM|#

Imagine a spokesman for a nation who went Handmaid's Tale. Now further imagine that spokesman being found on the campus of Yale.

fyodor|3.14.06 @ 11:55AM|#

His "background" is as a very active enabler and member of a brutally oppressive regime with an atrocious human rights record

Did he break any laws, RC? If so, he should go to jail. If not, why deny him admission to college?

This isn't a matter of moral relativism but rather a difference of perspective on college admissions. It's also one of those cases where pointing out (potential) hypocrisy fails to address which way things should change to avoid the hypocrisy. Should this former Taliban spokesman be denied admission to be consistent with the (hypothetical) denial of admission to former apartheidist? Or should the (hypothetical) apartheidist be admitted to be consistent with the admission of this former Taliban spokesman? Unless Yale is getting public funds (and maybe even if they do) it's ultimately the school's call, not mine. But FWIW, I'd rather live in the latter world than the former.

That said, the rationalization of the feminist quoted in Young's article is rather sorry.

|3.14.06 @ 11:57AM|#

Dean- Advocating for the allowance of different beliefs does not constitute endorsing those beliefs. They teach that in civics class. Its not moral relativism, its democracy.

While background concerning test scores, grades, parents money is generally considered an acceptable measure of university aptitude, most universities that I'm aware of don't exclude people for their religious or political beliefs.

|3.14.06 @ 11:59AM|#

Dean- Advocating for the allowance of different beliefs does not constitute endorsing those beliefs. They teach that in civics class. Its not moral relativism, its democracy.

While background concerning test scores, grades, parents money is generally considered an acceptable measure of university aptitude, most universities that I'm aware of don't exclude people for their religious or political beliefs.

|3.14.06 @ 12:05PM|#

Please select one of the following.

A Taliban spokesman and propagandist should be:

1) left to run around northern Pakistan rabblerousing for the neo-Taliban in their efforts to rise again;

2) put safely out of circulation at Yale.

Mike|3.14.06 @ 12:09PM|#

"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. American feminism is often linked to and manipulated by the state in order to further its own imperialist ends."

As an exercise, replace "white American feminist" with "Libertarian", the sexist regime with "Communist China", and "imperialist ends" with "protectionist ends".

fyodor|3.14.06 @ 12:28PM|#

Its not moral relativism, its democracy.

At the great risk of quibbling, it's not really democracy, either. It's (drum roll, please) LIBERALISM! And whatever it's called, I'm fer it!!

|3.14.06 @ 12:29PM|#

I don't see the problem. The guy is clearly very bright and capable and brings an undeniably unique and interesting perspective to the university. Ideally, a university should be a forum for competing ideologies without endorsing any of them. If Yale refused to admit him because it didn't want to be seen as endorsing his beliefs, that would suggest that Yale is endorsing the beliefs of all of its other students. It would then be very difficult for Yale to argue against keeping out students with other potentially offensive beliefs.

And to respond to the Goebbels analogy, I would support his admission to Yale also. A person can be vile and still be a unique and valuable intellectual contribution to the campus.

|3.14.06 @ 12:31PM|#

The point here is not whether the guy should be allowed into Yale... a decision that really belong to Yale and no one else. The point is that Ivy League schools are as dogmatic, inconsistent, hypocritical and full of windbags as the local Baptist church. Taliban apologist are tolerated. Other apologists are not.

|3.14.06 @ 12:42PM|#

"it wasn't appropriate to be as judgmental toward non-Western regimes."

WTF?

|3.14.06 @ 12:49PM|#

Jose: I'm not denying that Yale has a clear ideological bias, but I suspect that it's generally pretty good about not discriminating against applicants on the basis of ideology. I'm sure it would be happy to admit fundamentalist Baptists if they're qualified.

fyodor|3.14.06 @ 12:59PM|#

Other apologists are not.

I have not seen any evidence that Yale has actually been inconsistent in this manner, only speculation that they would be. Mind you, I'm not denying it could be the case, but actual examples would serve better than speculative claims. And once again, it's of course Yale's right to discriminate however they like and be inconsistent in doing so as well, though it is also my right (and everyone else's here) to call their reasoning inconsistent, fucked or whatever else.

|3.14.06 @ 1:23PM|#

The CIA created the Taliban so it makes sense that they would want to bring their agent back to Yale, the spook breeding ground. Say hello to Skull & Bones newest member.

I have to go now. They are monitoring my transmissions.

|3.14.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Seems like there is plenty of hypocrisy on all sides. I see lots of right wing commentators attacking Yale's "liberal bias", yet if Yale were to refuse admission to a fundamentalist Christian or a Mormon with similar views on a women's place in society they would be screaming just as loudly. The proper libertarian position is to commend Yale for allowing Hashemi in, but condemn the hypocrisy of the students who would not be tolerant of the same beliefs held by Americans. Cathy Young seems to have it backwards - she's condemning the students' hypocrisy but she appears to believe that Yale should refuse admittance based solely on the applicant's professed ideology, not any concrete action he has ever committed.

|3.14.06 @ 1:46PM|#

That said, the rationalization of the feminist quoted in Young's article is rather sorry.
Della's Yale Herald editorial was hilarious!

Regarding "multiculturalism" and "diversity," let's hold a candlelight vigil for the poor, suffering Japanese. We can only wonder what kind of digital cameras (cars, planes, electronics) they could be making if only they were more "diverse." No to mention their horrendous crime rates.

|3.14.06 @ 2:19PM|#

Since American intelligence interviewed the fellow extensively and let him go rather than shipping him to Club Gitmo, I think in this day and age we can assume his offenses against the US were venial - however offensive one may find his former life. And shouldn't libertarians of all people be open to the idea that individuals can change and - dare I say - improve, and that they should not be defined by their worst acts?

|3.14.06 @ 2:21PM|#

FLM:

OK, I will:

If the Japanese society were more diverse, maybe banks and the government would be willing to let "zombie zaibatsus" fail. They wouldn't have hidden clannish back-end connections all over the business landscape. They need some creative destruction.

Also, what planes are the Japanese making? Super-diverse Brazil's Embraer is the Pepsi to Bombardier's Coke in the puddle-jumper market. I can't name a Japanese airplane other than WWII Zeros.

|3.14.06 @ 2:32PM|#

based on the tales of some of the people sent to gitmo -- they would have been better off working for the Taliban than whatever peaceful, innoncent activities they were involved with before arrest. Its hard to believe Hamid Karzai's city council in Kabul doesn't want this guy on a warrant.

|3.14.06 @ 2:32PM|#

The idiotic relativism aside, what's the beef with the guy taking classes at Yale? It would be good to admit a (race as opposed to gender) S African apartheidnik too. Maybe everyone will learn something.

|3.14.06 @ 3:29PM|#

Forget Apartheid-era South Africa, some "anti-imperialist" faculty members want to exclude Israeli academics. I believe a British mathematician withdrew from a symposium because of the presence of two Israeli colleagues.

|3.14.06 @ 3:56PM|#

"Forget Apartheid-era South Africa, some "anti-imperialist" faculty members want to exclude Israeli academics. I believe a British mathematician withdrew from a symposium because of the presence of two Israeli colleagues."

Idiocy rampant.

|3.14.06 @ 4:25PM|#

Must say, that article was vapid crap.
And strangely not very libertarian in its stance.
I am disappointed in Reason :-(

DaveInBigD|3.14.06 @ 6:45PM|#

I'm with Fyodor and Vanya and company that the liberal/libertarian answer is that Yale is to be commended for letting him in.

At the same time, the various folks who said they'd hold him or the Taliban to a different standard because they're not Western are probably being racist.

But I'm definitely not quite getting my brain into Cathy's space there. While its funny to point out when sanctimonious leftist jerks use multiculturalism as another excuse to pretend that only the west is ever bad, that doesn't mean that we, as libertarians, should abandon our belief that speech, even on the behalf of a bloodthirsty regime, isn't a crime.

Cathy writes, "If there is a justification for Hashemi's admission, it's that he can learn something from us." Yup. That's the justification. And at the same time, we can learn from the counterexample of hearing these folks speak. I'd be fascinated to be able to interact with somebody who sympathises with the Taliban. Of course, I'd probably want to throttle them after a short while, but that's why we have cops, to scare us out of unrestrained violence.

The PC folks are wrong for wanting to kick people out of college for having unpopular beliefs. We can point out their hypocricy and self-contradictions without conceding that they are right to exclude some from academic debate.

|3.14.06 @ 7:01PM|#

DaveInBigD,
I think the move was ridiculous, but my reasoning would be that perhaps they could have found an untainted Afghani with the hope that they could raise the standard of life in Afghanistan. I suspect many others feel the same. Don't be so quick to whip out the 'r' word. I think it is just a common sense reaction: 'Why do bad things happen to good people?' or more apt, the opposite. (nb - I am not equating common sense with correct)
I don't see how libertarianism enters into it. We are using our first amendment rights to mock Yale for a bone headed move. I have heard very little suggestions for course of action, demands which might be considered anti-libertarian.
I am willing to give Yale the benefit of the doubt that the people making the decisions weren't particularly aware of this person. I hadn't heard of/remembered this guy before it came up recently, and I was somewhat plugged in when he came over here.

Gene Berkman|3.14.06 @ 7:29PM|#

I am not sure how liberal or left-wing Yale University is, but Yale University Press publishes an excellent series of books on the evils of Communism, including exposes of Communist espionage, and even one celebrating the anti-Communist cause in America.

Nor can I judge the right or wrong of letting this former Taliban study there. But I want to thank Cathy Young for pointing to a good column at the American Prospect which clearly identifies the decline in journalist ethics that characterizes the Wall Street Journal.

|3.14.06 @ 10:47PM|#

I think Cathy missed the mark on this one. The source of the controversy here is that this particular apologist worked for an oppressive, misogynistic theocracy that happened to be an enemy of the United States.

Perhaps a more useful exercise would be a survey identifying members or soon-to-be members of oppressive, misogynistic theocracies (and other tyrannical regimes) that have been embraced by public institutions and/or U.S. gov't entities at taxpayer expense because those regimes happen to be our "friends".

|3.15.06 @ 2:13AM|#

Ok, this has been beaten like a dead dog, but it isn't FAIR that they allowed the former spokesman for a regime that tortured kids in while shunting OTHER APPLICANTS!
Sweet Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ! How many people in America who are say in the lower class would love the position that ass-hat is in, or as anomdebus said, why not a "Taliban-free" student or a "Baath-free" student?
Yes, Yale is allowed to accept whomever they want, but they treated this modern-Gregor Strasser (they both left totalitarian politics for personal gain) like some hot-commodity student (ohh, he had over 60 hours/semester of helping at the St. Bridgit's Soup Kitchen, was regional president of 4-H for all 4 years of high school, and had a 4.0 GPA, he's a winner!).
While many here are on the more liberal side of the libertarian sphere and state that it is in the interest of furthering tolerance to open the doors to even mouthpieces of illiberalism, I can't help but think that he views Yale as being weak for allowing him in and laughs at it behind their backs in that he can not only be a former enemy of the US but can even go to their prestigious colleges if he only states the right opinions! What a deal!

|3.15.06 @ 7:24AM|#

Yale trains a lot of future leaders. From a "know your enemy" perspective, it seems worthwhile to keep him on display in New Haven. And, as somebody else pointed out, better that he's at Yale than in northern Pakistan drumming up support for a Taliban reconquista of Afghanistan. For all I know, he might get a handful of Yale students to nod their heads as he spouts some idiocy, but he certainly won't get any of them to take up arms.

|3.15.06 @ 8:44AM|#

Let me ask Cathy Young something about the sentiment expressed in this statement:

"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. American feminism is often linked to and manipulated by the state in order to further its own imperialist ends."

Silly, huh? So, uh, when was the last time there was an uproar against a university for admitting a functionary from Saudi Arabia or Iran?

|3.15.06 @ 4:44PM|#

Actually, joe, I think that's a great idea.
Maybe if the universities...I dunno...tried to challenge functionaries from Saudi Arabia or Iran about their illiberalism, I think that would be a step for progress.

However, from my limited prespective, I mainly hear about how the Ivy Leaguers and other prestigious universities mainly challenge the American paradigms rather than challenge someone from Saudi Arabia or Iran, precisly for the reason they think it would be bad to criticize The Other and thereby falling into the trap of Orientalism.

I still think that instead of getting son of wealthy Saudi Family A, we should get more lower class students from the USofA first.