Yale admits Taliban official as student.
 

Ivory Tower Stonewall
A 9/11 survivor asks Yale to explain why it admitted the Taliban Man.

Monday, April 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Katherine Bailey and her sister, Margaret Pothier, have a bone to pick with Yale President Richard Levin over his university's admission of a former Taliban official as a student. Mrs. Bailey lost her husband, Garnet "Ace" Bailey, on 9/11. Mr. Bailey, a hockey scout and former Boston Bruins star, was a passenger on United flight 175 when it slammed into the second World Trade Center tower.

Mrs. Bailey's sister, whose daughter graduated from Yale last year, has written Mr. Levin three times to demand an explanation. All she has gotten back is a single "form letter" that repeats the same vague 144-word response that has been Yale's sole statement on its Taliban Man for the past five weeks. "It's insulting and not at all brave," says Mrs. Bailey. Ms. Pothier is even more blunt: "Can't they see they are causing people pain and making it worse by ignoring our questions?"

In the past month, Mrs. Bailey and Ms. Pothier have had to be painfully reminded of Ace Bailey's death twice. The first was when they both watched a live TV feed of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was arrested a month before 9/11 and now has confessed to helping plot the attacks.

The second was when they learned that Yale had admitted Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, a 27-year-old former official of the Taliban, the murderous regime that harbored Osama bin Laden. Mr. Hashemi remains largely unrepentant about his involvement with the regime, whose remnants are still killing Americans. Last Wednesday brought word of the 139th U.S. soldier to be killed in combat at the hands of Taliban guerrillas, and yesterday, five U.S. soldiers were wounded when their armored vehicle struck a Taliban roadside bomb in Kunar province.

Mrs. Bailey feels an obligation to travel from her home in suburban Lynnfield, Mass., to a federal courtroom in Boston, where 9/11 families can watch the Moussaoui trial on closed-circuit television, so she can confront the evil that killed her husband. She says the courtroom scenes are chilling. "When prosecutors discuss how much he hates America, he turns around to face the camera he knows is broadcasting his trial to the victims' families," she told me. "He then pulls at his beard and vigorously shakes his head at us: 'Yes, yes.' "

Mrs. Bailey wishes all Americans could see what she's seen and hear Moussaoui's "blood curdling" testimony. "If the president of Yale and his officials could see the trial, perhaps they'd understand why people are upset and why they should find the courage to act on their Taliban student," she told me yesterday. "I only wish I could be sure they'd understand. They seem to want to stay inside their little bubble at Yale."

Mrs. Bailey has tried to take a positive approach to the loss of Ace, her husband of 29 years. She now spends most of her time promoting the Ace Bailey Children's Foundation, which assists programs such as Tufts University's Floating Hospital for Children, which treats children with major medical conditions.
But the past keeps coming back to haunt her. On the morning of 9/11, she had dropped Ace off at Logan Airport so he could board his United flight to Los Angeles on a hockey scouting trip. She says that he tried to reach her three times from his cell phone after the plane had been hijacked. "I didn't have call waiting on my home phone then, so I missed his first two calls because I was talking to someone else," she recalls. Then, in what she assumes was desperation, her husband called her downstairs business phone. "I ran down to get it, but when I picked up the line it went dead. It was the precise moment that Flight 175 lost contact with the outside world and hit the Trade Center. I never got to speak any final words with him." Last Friday, she was deeply saddened when the tapes of several dozen emergency calls from people trapped in the Trade Center that day were finally released to their families.

Mrs. Bailey says that such incidents as the Moussaoui trial and the release of emergency call tapes are unavoidable reminders of her loss. She is also concerned that "many Americans have become complacent since 3,000 of us died on 9/11. The attitude of those at Yale who think we need to educate Hashemi rather than a deserving Afghan victim of the Taliban is evidence of that laxity," she says. "What's almost as bad is that they refuse to discuss their decision with anyone."

Her sister tried to start a dialogue. On March 9, 11 days after a sympathetic 9,000-word New York Times magazine profile of Mr. Hashemi broke the news of his presence on campus, Ms. Pothier emailed President Levin from her home in Brookline, Mass.:

Our daughter, [name withheld], graduated from Yale in 2005. We are quite dismayed to hear of the attendance of Sayed Rahmatulla Hashemi at Yale University this year.
Having lost a family member to the 9/11 attacks and currently attending the sentencing phase of self-admitted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, we are appalled that Yale University would admit an individual with known Taliban involvement. Perhaps your admission committee members and you should further acquaint yourself with the totalitarian nature of this group. Our country remains in dire danger from radical Islam.

Until this matter is settled with the expulsion of this individual from Yale, we shall not contribute further to Yale.

Five days later, Mr. Levin's office responded with the 144-word form letter. "I was incensed," Ms. Pothier told me. "My daughter who went to Yale lost her favorite uncle on 9/11 and all he could do was send a word-for-word regurgitation of Yale's media statement."
She felt she deserved more. Unlike many parents, Ms. Pothier and her husband had paid Yale's full tuition, which during the time their daughter attended ranged from $36,000 to $39,000 a year. "I walked to work as a nurse every day at 6:15 am to pay those tuition bills," she told me. "I sent over $150,000 to Yale, and all I could get back from President Levin was a lousy form letter."

The next day, Ms. Pothier wrote back:

I appreciate your reply. However, I consider your explanation of Mr. Hashemi's presence at Yale to be naive at best and somewhat disingenuous.
In particular, your statement that "universities are places that must strive to increase understanding, especially of the most difficult issues that face the nation and the world," seems contrary to Yale's policy of banning ROTC and military recruiting from campus. The defense of our country is extraordinarily important to our survival.

You also noted that "we hope that his courses help him understand the broader context for the conflicts around the world." Are we then to believe that Osama bin Laden is to be enlightened by this same reasoning? Although Mr. Hashemi is not currently in a degree-granting program of study, you did not mention future plans for this individual at Yale.

That the State Department issued a visa to Mr. Hashemi is an unrelated subject in my view. It should not have happened. Allowing the former ambassador-at-large for the Taliban, a regime well known for its brutal tactics of imprisoning women and depriving them of any educational opportunities, to study at Yale is outrageous. I find Yale's admissions committee and you devoid of understanding the true nature and actions of the Taliban.

I do hope that you will do the correct thing regarding Mr. Hashemi: expel him from Yale.

I will follow with interest.

After waiting five days and receiving no reply, Ms. Pothier sat down at her word processor a third and final time and penned the following letter on March 20:

After speaking with several alumni and parents of Yale graduates, it is clear to me that we all received the identical e-mail regarding our concerns about Mr. Hashemi's attendance at Yale.
I believe that this is a story that will not and should not go away. That Yale University is using resources to educate a former high-ranking Taliban official is extremely disturbing. Perhaps the coffers of Yale's endowment are so full that further donations are not needed. I, for one, will not send another dime until this egregious situation is rectified with the expulsion of this individual.

I would also request that you not respond to me with another generic e-mail.

Two weeks later, Ms. Pothier has yet to receive a reply from Mr. Levin, "in keeping," she says, "with his general ostrich-like behavior" on the Taliban Man issue.

Ms. Pothier says she has been disappointed before by Yale's handling of the feelings of the families of 9/11 victims. In September 2001, she drove down from Boston to pick up her daughter at Yale for her uncle's memorial service. She was appalled when her daughter told her about a "town meeting" Yale's administrators had organized at Battell Chapel on Sept. 16. Its ostensible purpose was to explain the attack's significance to students.
"She went there to try to understand why her uncle was killed," Ms. Pothier recalls. "Instead she got something else entirely: the message that the U.S. may be partly to blame." The six panelists, led by history professor Paul Kennedy and former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, all focused on the "underlying causes" of the attack and our need to understand those who hated America.

Mr. Talbott concluded that it "it is from the desperate, angry and bereaved that these suicide pilots came." But the most controversial comments were by Prof. Kennedy who suggested that students should understand the reasons why the U.S. was hated. He stated that the vastness of U.S. power in the world and the attractive nature of its political and social ideals were seen by many as "offensive cultural messages" and engendered anger. "Suppose that there existed today a powerful united Arab-Muslim state," he told Yale's students and posited that state had the biggest economy and the most powerful military in the world. "In those conditions, would not many Americans grow to loathe that colossus?" Mr. Kennedy wondered. "I think so."

The reaction from some faculty members who were not part of the "town meeting" was swift. Steven Smith, a political science professor, said that confused and timid statements such as those at the "Town Meeting" represented a "failure to see the attack on America as an act of clear and unmitigated evil." Donald Kagan, a history professor and former dean of Yale College, went further and blasted the panel for the uniformity of the views it expressed. He asked why Yale couldn't find one professor who could have focused on the enemy and "how to stamp out such evil." He wondered if Yale had found it "impossible" to find one, or "just undesirable."

Mr. Kagan wrote that the meeting was "a classic example of blaming the victim" and that Mr. Kennedy's comments "seem to suggest we react by appeasing the terrorists by a measured retreat." Mr. Kennedy responded to his critics by sending out the full text of his remarks and asking that "readers draw their own conclusions."

Ms. Pothier says her daughter had heard Mr. Kennedy in full and was still upset. Last week, she and Mrs. Bailey visited her daughter in Costa Rica, where she is teaching. "She still remembered how that Yale town meeting failed to see the real issues of 9/11," Ms. Pothier told me. "She and a college classmate had also just seen that Yale had admitted the Taliban official and both were aghast. We all wonder if Yale will ever get it."

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.

Yale officials now have other concerns. Yesterday it was announced that China's President Hu Jintao will deliver a major address on campus on April 21. Mr. Levin has sent out an email saying the Chinese leader's visit "affirms the value the Chinese place on their longstanding relationship with Yale. In recent years, Yale has been the most active of all American universities in establishing student exchanges and research collaborations with China."
Yale's enormous commitment to China is likely to dominate discussion on campus in the coming weeks. But Mrs. Bailey and Ms. Pothier believe the university is making a long-term mistake by trying to sweep the Taliban Man issue under a rug by ignoring their complaints and that of all others.

After all, they point out that it would just take one more Tiananmen Square massacre in China to leave Yale with an bigger embarrassment than even the Taliban Man has been. "Yale owes it to both itself and the world outside its ivory towers to clarify where it stands on moral questions," Ms. Pothier says.

She points out that last month, the university, with the support of the student government, decided to divest from Sudan, whose government condones slavery and has been accused of genocide. But when it comes to harboring a former top official of the Taliban, another murderous regime whose remnants are even now killing Americans, Yale's official silence continues--and speaks volumes.

It's kind of interesting to actually see the beginning of the end of a super-power. How long will it take you think?

A few hundred years like Rome, or will our fall be as fast as our rise?

not to point out the seemingly obvious - but the man is in the country and i can't be naive to think that the government is aware of this tidbit of info too-

so, if he is here legally then why wouldn't yale be within their rights to admit him as a student????

hell - if we're gonna cry foul at schools admitting students - i'm sure there are worse people to educate...

- marissa

Yeah, I don't know why this guy is here in America going to Yale, instead of the University of Camp X-Ray.

So you're saying that if your uncle was killed in the 9/11 attack and a former taliban official was sitting next to you in your chem lab it wouldn't bother you?

it prolly WOULD upset me - but "former" is the word

back to part of my original concept - if people know he's here - the government knows he's here - if he had anything major to do with 9/11, then he probably wouldn't be enrolling at yale

not that i condone terrorist org membership but there were a considerable number of people in the nazi party prior that jumped ship after hitler rose in power and there were a considerable number of people put in leadership roles post-WWII as long as they were deemed to be "not too nazi-ish" <-- my own words =)

that this man was a taliban official = not good
that this man be judged for the rest of his life on assumptions and info we may be completely unaware of = not good either

- marissa

You make zero sense. Not even a tiny smidge.

-Rudey

that's okay - i'll translate my midnight ramblings...

it prolly WOULD upset me = yes, i have sympathy for people affected and would also be upset if it affected me

"former" is the word = the article said he was a FORMER taliban official, not at bin laden's right hand currently

the government knows he's here = don't get pissy with yale for admitting a person who is in the country legally, get pissy with the govt for saying he can be here

nazi example = meant to show this isn't the first time in history that people are allowed to change their group memberships and not be burned at the stake for the rest of their lives

ex taliban = not good but at least its "EX"
people not really knowing ALL the info and still judging = stupid and unfortunately sometimes stupidity is permanent...

- marissa

It's not any better. Perhaps it's just that you don't make any sense. :(

-Rudey

I've heard of schools barring individuals from enrolling because they were charged with rape. Even though these men were FORMER rapists they were still not allowed to attend.

I guess ultimately the point is that Yale is a private school so they dont have to answer to the people and they can pretty much accept or reject anyone they choose for their own reasons.

I think they accept federal funding despite being a private insitutuion . . .

good point!

i simply have no idea as to what this man is ACTUALLY guilty of...

Didnt know that...

Since when is there such a thing as a former Taliban Member?:confused:

Since that regime fell. The taliban is pretty much non-existant now. (Do not confuse with Al Qeda, an allied, but seperate, orginization). So..everyone involved w/ Taliban is now former TAliban. We make sure they don't have business meetings.

thank you...

This bothers me in a ton of different ways, none of which I'm able to discuss right now...

Just my two cents...

"Mrs. Bailey feels an obligation to travel from her home in suburban Lynnfield, Mass., to a federal courtroom in Boston, where 9/11 families can watch the Moussaoui trial on closed-circuit television..."
-I feel about this like I feel about television. If you don't like it, don't watch it. If it makes you upset, yet you still go and watch the trial, don't bitch to anyone about it, because it's your choice.

Also, the part about the "town meeting" kind of upset me. This woman seems to think that it isn't important for us to understand why we're hated, why others would WANT to bomb us. This kind of blind hatred/patriotism/trusting of the government/ignorance to anyone else is BAD. I'd much rather know why this happened than have a meeting where we talk about how we're right, they're wrong, and that's all there is.

I don't want to sound like I don't think 9/11 was a tragedy and a terrible thing. I'm just saying that these people are not making a whole lot of sense in their objections. I don't know how I'd feel if a former Taliban official came to my school...I'm just putting in my 2 cents...

Have to disagree here because even though they don't have control over Afghanistan like they used to, they are still around causing trouble for the coalition forces over there.

"We make sure they don't have business meetings"

Just like we make sure Al-Queda doesn't have business meetings?

Hey, there's been worst people enrolling in US based academic institutions. Just look at the Schools of Americas.

Congrats you, squirrelygirl, and optimus prime qualify for the "I Don't Make Sense" Award. The three of you will receive an all expenses paid trip to nowhere and will have the opportunity to compete for the "I Wish I Thought Things Through" prize. WOOOO!

-Rudey

if winning the "thought things through" award comes with a lifetime subscription to all the xenophopic, sexist, racist, and homophopic thoughts and speech that one person can possibly use, well, i'm perfectly happy not making any sense...

No it just means you don't make sense. Just like your previous posts, this one made no sense either. :(

-Rudey

Me as well.

The woman lost her husband, and one of the people who may be responsible is being admitted to a top-flight university. I'm not sure you (or most of us, for that matter) can understand her anger and pain right now, and I don't think it's for any of us to judge.

Saying that she doesn't have the right to view that trial or talk about it afterwards, after all she went through, and comparing it to complaints after a television program? That is harsh at best.

taliban = not (neccesarily) al qaeda

that's like saying somebody who is baptist supports the westboro baptist church people

just to make this clear, i do not support the goals and practices of either the taliban or al qaeda - i just think that some of the arguments against this guy getting an education are assinine and ignorant

OMG. Fine. I'll break it down for you since you are "assinine and ignorant".

The Taliban supported Al Quaeda and provided them with a basecamp. They supported the terror group and worked in tandem with them as well on many occasions. Additionally, during their rule the Taliban terrorized and brutalized an entire nation. After their ousting, the Taliban took up terrorism as well.

Even you acknowledge some implicit guilt in being a member of the Taliban as you bring up the Nazi analogy.

Sadly that analogy is beyond foolish. 1) Nazi rocket scientists worked on developing missile and atom bomb technology in a vital race if you want to justify it and 2) the fact that we have done something in the past, does not justify it in the future - it's like the Nazis saying that they can commit genocide again because it was acceptable back then. You can't even begin to justify this (using point 1) because there is no life and death struggle that this terrorist is involved in; he is taking non-degree courses at Yale.

Additionally his being in the country is separate from being at Yale. Yale is not the USA. You can be in America and not be in Yale. I believe I said the same thing 3 times, in 3 different ways, just to make sure the point got across. Any anger with the State Department is separate. Immigration officials have let in terrorists in the past, accidentally or whatnot as well.

Furthermore, given the private status of Yale the parents have every right to publicize this given their daughter's enrollment at Yale as well as a desire to bring about change by "Spreading the news." Schools in the Ivy+, like Yale, get their pick of students and this really is not something to brag about aside from upsetting many students and their families.

So really is it worth it labeling others as "Ignorant" and throwing around words like "Xenophobia" when really you haven't thought this through, your statements make no sense, and you have no concept of xenophobia given your isolation in Tennessee? I would think not, but I'm sure your response, should there be one, will make no sense either.

-Rudey

If the "town meeting" at Yale really went down the way this family says it did, that's pretty assy. We had a school-wide assembly too, but it was more for support than trying to discuss the geopolitical reasons for what happened.

This kid is paying for the education himself, as international students are not eligible for institutional financial aid. How is this happening?

Plus it's a non-degreed program right? If I had to guess, Yale probably doesn't do much of a background check and probably has a weak application for students that just want to take classes much like most schools. So this kid is just shelling out cash, probably made from selling bombs all summer long, and Yale is more than happy to take it. If they do stop this, I'm sure they'll have to tackle other hairy issues which they're not prepared to do.

-Rudey

simple logic would escape you, wouldn't it?

International students in non-degree granting programs are cash cows. The kids in the summer program I RA-ed in were crazy freaks, including sketchy Sauds, but they were able to pay $10,000 to hang out in Providence for 2 months so the University was all, "okay!"

I heard it's even worse at a lot of the top boarding schools. Kids are there and everyone knows their dad is some dictator or sketch Arab and nobody's surprised if a student has ties to drug runners at deerfield.

-Rudey

does anyone know the nature of this guy's involvement with the taliban? or was he just an "official?"

and the US and russia actively pursued nazi rocket scientists for their own personal gain in the space race after WW2

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case...sts/about.html

we still lost, though.


:(

No, I have no idea what she's going through, that's true. But I'm not saying she doesn't have the right to do it. All I'm saying is that, number one, if it were me, there is no way I would want to go make myself upset even more by watching that guy. That's just hurting yourself more. And number two, I don't care if she does it...I just think that if you are going to willingly put yourself through that much pain, you shouldn't complain about it. Just don't go. Grieve, talk about your husband, whatever, cause you couldn't stop that, and you need to let it out. But don't put yourself through more pain and expect others to feel sorry for you because of that. Like I said though, that's just my two cents...and I'm notoriously cold-hearted.

like, OMG - great response!

couple of quick points though -

i get what you're saying about the relationship between the taliban and al quaeda and i won't argue with you on their "badness" - but suggesting that ALL taliban members are card carrying members of al quaeda is like suggesting that all baptists are also members of the westboro baptist church or that all republicans are completely aware and supportive of bush - i can say that three ways if need be

i wasn't the one who brought up missile and atom bomb technology in regards to nazis - you just did. my reference to nazis was in regards to them leading their own country following the rebuilding after WWII.

i agree that any anger with the state department is separate -that was, in fact, my point. don't get angry at yale for letting the guy who is here legally take classes

i'm really not sure where the publicizing the info fits into any of my previous posts, so oh well...

as for labeling others - check what i posted because i did not label anybody, just the arguments - you on the other didn't seem to have a problem resorting to that tactic

and it is interesting that you think people in tennessee have no concept of xenophobia given the "isolation" - is there some kind of "coastal" requirement that i'm not privy to or what?

that comment makes no sense.

- marissa

Following WWII the idea that "I was just a member of the military/party and had to do what I was told" became unacceptable. You should read up on that. He was a member of a terrorist group, the Taliban. It's that simple. Whether he was an information officer or a liason to Al Quaeda, he supported the organization.

And it's funny how you simply did not get the fact that just because something was acceptable before does not mean it is now. The plans to de-Nazify Germany included plans to execute up to 100,000 German military officers following the war that didn't materialize. Another part of the de-Nazification was the Morgenthau plan, which would have severely punished Germany but wasn't undertaken due to political reasons. The years after WWII, it would be a joke to not realize the Allied control over Germany. There is no reason to allow this guy into Yale because he isn't needed to build rockets or to help the government run itself. There is NO comparison here. And even if you could come up with some bizarre comparison (which you haven't since there is no link), it doesn't mean it's justified unless you now believe genocide and slavery are acceptable.

You make no sense in any of your post. Once again, people are angry at Yale for letting him take classes there. You still think it's OK for that once someone is allowed into the country.

And you have no concept of xenophobia because you've used the term incorrectly, make no sense in your posts, and live in isolation in an area which has nowhere near the level of immigrant populations as the coastal states (similar to a dearth of bobsledders coming out of zimbabwe).

-Rudey
--Living in a hillbilly area just doesn't teach you those things.

maybe yale needed to fill their quota for former officials of a brutal islamist regime.

rudey, you know nothing about the hillbilly area that squirrely lives in, or what it teaches us.

if the Taliban Man decided to attend Austin Peay, i would hope that a soldier would come off the base and shoot him dead.

i admire the heart of the zimbabwan bobsled team and i wish them the best this summer at the FIFA World Cup soccer competition. i hope they pitch a no-hitter.

I went to TN once. My favorite interaction was at a sports bar/night club near the water in Nashville where a hot female bartender (wearing a shirt with camo) told me she was real close with her friend and then made out with her...then she pointed to an old man who looked like she knew him and said "I'm real close with my dad too".

I was pretty happy after the girl-on-girl kiss but that comment ruined everything.

-Rudey

while i certainly love a good debate, i generally try not to engage people who feel the necessity to name call - oh well though -

the history lesson, while well intentioned, isn't supporting your argument and comes across as a poor attempt to make yourself sound intelligent - btw, in case you didn't get the memo - wikipedia isn't the best source of info, try getting an actual degree in modern european history or i can pass along a reading list at your request.

IMMEDIATELY following WWII the "party member only" argument was, in fact, not acceptable. i agree with you here. however, after running out of acceptable people, the military did eventually give in and relax standards. additionally - the Morgenthau plan was an issue unto itself and had less to do with nazis and more to do with industrial capabilities, money, and fear. at any rate, it wasn't much worse than the post WWI reparations. i was thinking about discussing the marshall plan here but i thought it in poor taste as this wasn't what the original discussion was about (but doesn't it look really cool that i threw it out there?!?!)

and i am super stoked that your high-falutin' school taught you so much about geography and immigrant populations - as well versed as you are, i wonder when you had time to learn about all of the other things you post about?

at any rate - i live in a rather large military town and i'm not from tn originally

- marissa

ps - my state of residence has no bearing on your personality flaws

wikipedia? Get real. I mentioned the denazification because you brought it up (of course there was ZERO relation to this case). You also brought up my school and now my knowledge. Perhaps you've got some sort of complex :).

And it's awesome that you're able to skip over everything and not comprehend why you make no sense. Using your logic, slavery should still be allowed because it used to be legal and terrorists (and their supporters) that somehow legally got into the US, should do whatever they want.

It's funny how you didn't get it. I got it and so did several others in this thread :)

-Rudey
--And if you don't care that Yale let him in, you don't have to read this thread.