The Yale - Taliban Connection

The NYTimes reports that Rahmatullah Hashemi, a former spokesman and roving ambassador for the Taliban who is currently taking classes at Yale, has formally applied for admission to a degree-granting program at the university.

There appear to be two arguments for why Hashemi belongs at Yale. The first is that he would benefit from a Yale education. Well, sure. Who wouldn't? There are a thousand times more people for whom that is true than Yale has space for. Why choose him? Why not give the golden ticket in the American education lottery to someone less morally compromised, like one of the countless Afghan women the Taliban barred from school?

That leads to the second argument, which is that Yale would benefit from having Hashemi as a student:

In a statement issued in March, the university said: "We acknowledge that some are criticizing Yale for allowing Mr. Hashemi to take courses here, but we hope that critics will also acknowledge that universities are places that must strive to increase understanding, especially of the most difficult issues that face the nation and the world."

Mr. Hashemi worked for the Office of Foreign Affairs under the Taliban, serving initially as a translator and then as a diplomat in the Afghan Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. He was named a roving ambassador in 2000, traveling to the Middle East and Europe. He toured the United States early in 2001, speaking at Yale and several other universities and appearing on public television and radio; he defended the abridgement of women's rights by the Taliban and the destruction of huge Buddhist statues, among other things.

The "abridgement" of women's rights? Abridgement is a, shall we say, somewhat muted way of characterizing things like shooting women in the back of the head with a rifle in a soccer stadium full of cheering spectators. Just to take one example of many.

The supposed benefits of Hashemi's presence seems to be animated by the idea that only through communication and understanding can we ultimately come to reconciliation and peace. As a principle of human relations, I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. But where is the supposed lack of understanding here? Is there any outstanding ambiguity left to resolve regarding the Taliban, any uncertainty as to what it's done or what it stands for? This is an organization that has defined itself in the most unambiguous terms imaginable.

Some would say principles of diversity and tolerance are only meaningful when defended at unpopular extremes. But this is a case of worthy principles extended to illogical lengths, to the point of obvious self-contradiction. It's clear that the relatively small number of universities with the luxury of choosing the composition of their student bodies have a powerful--if somewhat vague-preference for diversity along a large number of dimensions. Again, a good thing. But does it make sense to extend the principle of diversity to people who have aided and abetted regimes that are ruthlessly preoccupied with stamping out diversity by deadly means, particularly when it comes at the expense of some other student?