<p>Anyone know if he got in as a degree student/what's going on with that whole thing?</p>
<p>END THREAD</p>
<p>I knew about all that already. I was wondering if he ever actually got in (as a degree student), after all the controversy, media attention, etc.</p>
<p>Did you read it? It clearly explains that he was admitted under the Eli Whitney program, which does NOT grant a degree.</p>
<p>But he has APPLIED to be admitted as a regular student.</p>
<p>Thank you, Byerly. I don't think I was being unclear when I asked if he got in as a DEGREE student...</p>
<p>As of mid-May, there were pro and con editorials in USA Today that indicated that his application to have his status converted to degree candidate was still pending. I don't think Yale is in any hurry to announce a decision - it's a no-win situation for them.</p>
<p>I disagree, Sayed is a good guy and Yale will be a better place for having him.</p>
<p>Anything you may think you know about him is based on your willingess to attach labels (i.e. the Taliban guy) to him and is in no way based on any actual experience.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Sayed is a good guy
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yeah, besides the whole "I'm really sorry for your husband. He might have a very difficult time with you." or the personal involvement with the Taliban. Clearly, a good guy.</p>
<p>I wasnt looking to rehash the substantive debate I expressed my views on that in another thread. But regardless of the underlying substance, I think its clearly a no-win situation for Yale. If they convert Rahmatullahs status to regular student and let him stay, then they face the continuing conservative backlash from alumni and the WSJ, without even the special student fig leaf that Rahmatullah supporters have been using to date. On the other hand, if they give him the boot, then theyll face the wrath of the PC crowd for giving in to the conservatives. Maybe the Bushies will get them out of the pickle by revoking his student visa. In the meantime, the guy who got them into this mess is enjoying himself out in Palo Alto. An interesting set of dynamics all around.</p>
<p>"Yeah, besides the whole "I'm really sorry for your husband. He might have a very difficult time with you." or the personal involvement with the Taliban. Clearly, a good guy."</p>
<p>I can't be the only one who finds Hashemi's quote kind of funny. And SonataX--try to be a little more specific than "personal involvement with the Taliban." Vague statements like that confuse the issues; you simply cannot equate Hashemi's role in the Taliban with one of a terrorist, no matter how much you'd like to suggest it.</p>
<p>SonataX, do you have anything more recent than that? That all ended years ago. Have you not considered the fact that he realized what he was doing was wrong and he actually changed? So far that seems to be the case, from what I know...</p>
<p>Where has he said that? Do you have a link?</p>
<p>It's just the impression I've gotten from reading about the issue sporadically, mainly the NYT Magazine article. I'm not quite in the mood to argue a solid point right now so we'll just leave it there :)</p>
<p>GuitarmanARS-- </p>
<p>I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Hashemi "has realized what he was doing was wrong." It really depends what you're talking about here. I haven't come across anything to suggest that his views on women and religion have changed, nor do I think it matters whether he realized these views were "wrong." His views do not make him a bad guy, and certainly do not void his right to pursue an education.</p>
<p>I'd like to hear SonataX's definition of a "good guy."</p>
<p>
If you had any appreciation for what the Taliban did to women what they were doing to women at the time Rahmatullah made this comment as a Taliban spokesman you wouldnt find it the least bit funny.</p>
<p>
And SonataX--try to be a little more specific than "personal involvement with the Taliban." </p>
<p>nor do I think it matters whether he realized these views were "wrong." His views do not make him a bad guy, and certainly do not void his right to pursue an education.</p>
<p>I'd like to hear SonataX's definition of a "good guy."
</p>
<p>1) He was a "high ranking official" in the Taliban regime. While that does not mean he was a terrorist, that also means that he was a supporter of oppression and brutality.</p>
<p>2) Oh, he has a right to pursue an education. But no one has a 'right' to be admitted to any one school. I wonder if he'd get admitted on any sort of academic credentials.</p>
<p>3) Someone who hasn't been a part of an oppressive islamic regime bent on the subjugation of women and the active sponsorship of terrorism.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
SonataX, do you have anything more recent than that? That all ended years ago. Have you not considered the fact that he realized what he was doing was wrong and he actually changed? So far that seems to be the case, from what I know...
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Years ago = about 5 years ago.</p>
<p>As Al Gore would say, zebras don't change their spots.</p>
<p>Did you see the recent poll in the NYTimes that showed that most Islamic women do not think they are being mistreated, and, on the contrary, that women in the US are being MORE objectified than they are? I am sure that, if you were in their shoes, you would think that the US is "mistreating" its women.</p>
<p>Not to say that I AGREE with the way that they are treated. But that is just because of cultural norms.</p>
<p>Morals are relative.</p>
<p>I dont think anyone was talking about the treatment of Islamic women generally. I think we were talking about the treatment of women by the Taliban, which was considered beyond the pale by most Islamic regimes. I understand that in a morally relativistic universe, the concept of evil is problematic. But for those who believe there is such a thing as evil (as I do), the Taliban surely qualifies.</p>
<p>pro.gatsby, while I disagree about moral relativity, you bring up the point I was about to. Maybe I am too na</p>