<p>I respect Visirale's point, but I'm not sure what we should conclude. So the Blair kid is likely to have more influence (through no merit of his own). Does that mean Yale should jolly well offer him even MORE influence with one of its prestigious degrees despite the fact that he does not seem to deserve admission? If there is going to inequality in admission, I would think morally it ought to go in the direction of offering "influence" to that kid in the boonies, rather than giving even more to those who don't deserve what they already have. </p>
<p>Is Yale seeking more "influence" for itself? That hardly makes the decision any more right or just. Or is the prime minister's son likely to bring a "diverse perspective" to the class? Maybe there should be a separate category of "DP" admits to distinguish those who deserve the Yale name from those who don't...</p>
<p>I suppose that I'll jump into the "Taliban guy" argument as well.</p>
<p>What is more 'un-American' (of course, this itself is a loaded term) - admitting an official of a brutally oppressive regime to an institution of higher learning, OR silencing his views. </p>
<p>I ask this rhetorically, of course, because the trend as-of-late has been to silence dissent among people - Americans and non-Americans alike. You don't need to agree with what other people stand for. And they don't have to agree with you. Frankly, when this sort of argument is raised, it lowers one's credibility because it simply makes them seem ignorant, in my eyes. So what if you don't like him. Don't listen. Isn't one of the great things about America that we <em>used to</em> have freedom of speech? And how we equate ourselves to the Taliban and to the regime of Saddam Hussein, and say that we are better than them? Yet all the Bush administration and fellow conservatives have tried to do is quash dissent, strip us of free speech, and press their feeble-minded agenda. I honestly fear for the future of this nation, because of people like you. In the federalist papers, a concept called "tyranny of the majority" was widely discussed, and gave rise to the American tradition of "majority rule with minority rights," to ensure that competing and unpopular views would always be heard. In recent years the silencing of dissent has become more institutionalized and systematic. By those standards, the terrorists ARE winning. We are changing our ideals. And worse yet, we are becoming more like them. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean the legal right to say something (and even that is being eroded away). It also means having the ability to say it without fear of intimidation, and without ordinary citizens trying to shout you down, harrass you, and de-facto force you to remain silent. There is absolutely no respect for free thought in this country. Even the idea of 'academic freedom' has gone down the tubes - case in point, the professor who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmans". On an intellectual level, I believe his comparison is inaccurate. But, to use the cliche, I would defend to the death his right to say it, because when it comes my time to say something unpopular (as I frequently do), I want that right to be there for me.</p>
<p>How is not admitting the "Taliban guy" with his 4th grade education and his record of bigotted and offensive speech the equivalent of "silencing his views"? Don't be absurd.</p>
<p>I don't dispute that his qualifications are, at first glance, certainly not up to the standards of Yale. But I would certainly guess that there is more to be seen. What I <em>am</em> disputing is your argument that he should be denied entry to Yale because of his purported beliefs.</p>
<p>So what, if he has "bigotted and offensive speech"? It's offensive to you, obviously. What Ann Coulter says is offensive to me and to millions of Americans, and yet she has her time on TV. Fox News is allowed to spread their lies. And obviously a many of us disagree with your assertions. Yet you still have the right to say them. </p>
<p>I will point you back to the idea of academic freedom - the notion that the free exchange and honest appraisal ideas brings about the greatest improvement for a society. Perhaps he was admitted because he carries a different world-view? I think that, by most standards, he has a unique experience - especially when compared to Americans. And just because he was the mouthpiece of the Taliban does not mean he agrees with what they say. Tony Snow, spokesman for the Bush administration, publicly disagreed with several of the president's policies. Yet now he must convey them in a positive light, regardless of his personal opinions. I am sure the rebuttal here will be "but the Taliban guy is different." Well, no, he isn't. And unless anybody on this board has evidence to the contrary, we cannot assume that he believed every word he spoke (especially when you consider what the penalty would be if he didn't spread their propaganda). And even if he is, what do I care? There are a lot of racists in this country. Historically, Yale has had more than its fair share. And I'm sure they still do. But it is the right of every American to believe as they wish, ignorant or not. Education tries to rectify that, and so, without it, how can you ever expect to move beyond these archaic notions?</p>