John Fund reports today that Malalai Joya, a 27 year old female member of the Afghan Parliament, spoke at Yale University last Thursday about Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the Yale Taliban:"It is an unforgivable insult to the Afghan people that he is here. He should face a court of law rather than be at one of your finest universities."
Yale continues in its refusal to respond, even going so far as having the campus police order removal of questioners from the campus.
Meanwhile, Penraker points out that studying in America has little effect on hard-line Islamists.
And James Kirchick of the Yale Daily News says:
"Outrage over religious fascism ought to be the province of American liberals. But in Hashemi's case it has been almost entirely trumpeted by Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and right-wing bloggers. A friend of mine recently remarked that part of his and his peers' nonchalance (and in some cases, support for) Hashemi has to do with the fact that the right has seized upon the issue. Our politics have become so polarized that many are willing to take positions based on the inverse of their opponents'. This abandonment of classical liberal values at the expense of political gamesmanship has consequences that reach far beyond Yale; it hurts our national discourse."
6 comments:
I'm glad Yale has admitted him and refuses to respond. It rather exposes academia for what it is, I think--
Just as the Summers kerfuffle exposed Harvard.
Now, to persuade their big buck contributors that's it's time to spend that money elsewhere.
cf,
Maybe they are being exposed for what they are.
I mean, what is it that these places are, really? Why is it reasonable to give money to them and call that "charitable giving" at all? Why are they tax-exempt? Why are they able to rake in millions of the taxpayers' money without being held accountable to the taxpayers' laws?
Essentially these institutions are businesses in the business of education. They have brand names to preserve which allow them to charge premium values for their products. After all, the area of a circle is the same at Harvard as at North Dakota State. Why pay more?
But in fact they are treated as some sort of exclusive club that one's family was powerful enough to buy into. That's why we see those little stickers in the rear windows of all those cars. If they are exclusive clubs, fine, but end the charitable giving tax exclusion.
Once upon a time many folks in middle America had ambivalent feelings about the folks at Yale, Harvard, etc. because they felt intimidated by all the pointy headed intellectuals that were absent minded professors--intimidated by their intellect but laughing at their lack of practical intelligence. Now much of middle America is looking upon the Yales, Harvards, etc. with much deserved contempt. The elite universities have ceased to be forums for serious and respectful debate. Instead they are fast replacing Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey with some Soviet Politburo thrown in for good measure.
Barry,
They are no longer universities in any meaningful sense with regard to what were once the liberal arts. They retain some semblance of a university regarding the physical sciences but boundaries are blurring even there.
The victory achieved by the affinity groups responsible for the intellectual sclerosis exhibited by the Ivies can only be described as hollow in the extreme.
Hollywood, the MSM and the universities going down together is pleasing but one might wish that it was happening more quickly.
There was a time when you went to one of about five universities in the Northeast, or you didn't go at all.
It may have looked that way, but IIRC there are some 500 colleges of various sorts in the Boston area and people actually go to them. There are many specialties, such as teaching, that don't require a Harvard degree.
A friend of mine recently remarked that part of his and his peers' nonchalance (and in some cases, support for) Hashemi has to do with the fact that the right has seized upon the issue.
I think his friend is like myself: when it comes right down to it, I am really not that concerned about liberty and justice in other countries. When the lack thereof poses a threat then I can be moved to action, but otherwise I am content to leave things be. This is generally a healthy attitude, I think. There are many important things nearer to home and we can't all spend our time being good little internationalists. The difference in the liberal case is that the liberal pieties require one to express an interest in such things and instead of admitting a profound disinterest one has to invent silly excuses.
I think more generally that the reason progressives, such as gay activists and feminists, don't concern themselves with the Muslim world, or China, Cuba, and North Korea, is that they really just don't care what happens over there. They just can't admit it. Real internationalists are scarce.
My son went to Harvard and loved it--but it was not for the classes. They have so much money you can start up any activity you might be interested in and he learned more managing a business for HSA and as President of one of the organizations than he did in classes.Most of his friends were foreign students or poor children of recent immigrants. His real education took place before he went there.(I do think the kids at Harvard and less flakey than the kids at Yale)
But he majored in science.
The Liberal arts and social sciences are rather a p.c., easy riding joke. And it's almost impossible to flunk out--ergoclowns like Gore and Kerry.
Post a Comment