According to this piece, in the Yale Daily News, Yale University is considering opening an arts institute in the United Arab Emirates. Here’s a bit from the end of the piece:
Other universities have been wary of dealing with the United Arab Emirates. The University of Connecticut’s plans to open a satellite campus in Dubai were set aside recently because of concerns about discrimination against Israeli citizens.
Shailor said Yale is taking these concerns seriously, but that they have not stopped the University from moving forward with its talks with Abu Dhabi’s government.
“There are lots of issues,” Shailor said. “Certainly if you think about our interactions with China or with India, one could express some more concerns across the board. So what one would do is to look at all of these concerns, see exactly to what extent they seem to be justified, and then to weigh the positive aspects of having a relationship and building a relationship with not having a relationship.”
Shailor said she will probably be returning to Abu Dhabi within the next few weeks.
Is Yale’s consideration of this project in any tension with the position taken by many of the Yale Law School’s faculty in the Rumsfeld case?
Posted by Rick Garnett on April 2, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Comments
This inquiry seems tailor-made for me. Yes, I think there is some tension, and that you choose exactly the right measured word for it. One might distinguish between the views of the university as a whole and the views of the Law School faculty, but of course that raises the question whether and when a faculty (or a majority thereof) can speak for a university or a subpart of a university on questions of policy; I suppose the answer to that question is “it depends.” And one could offer the broader response that institutional autonomy, at least as I’ve argued for it, includes the right to define a university mission in a way that may seem inconsistent to outsiders. But my work has always centrally argued that even if the courts themselves must defer substantially to such determinations by universities, we the public, and certainly those of us who are part of the broader university community, are not restricted in this fashion, and can and should ask both whether we agree with a particular university’s description of its mission, and whether, even assuming we accept the university’s description of that mission, it is in fact living out that mission with integrity and consistency. So, even if the courts are largely obliged to defer to the university’s sense of its own educational mission (not completely — I also argue that we might use a university’s own description of its mission, and its own procedures, as a benchmark to judge its actions; but of course the university could simply describe its mission in a way that is tailored to allow collaboration with the UAE but not with military recruiters), the rest of us can still critique a university’s description of its mission, point out “tensions” in its application of that mission, and vote with our voices and our feet.
Posted by: Paul Horwitz | Apr 3, 2007 9:33:33 AM
I don’t know whether this is on point, but I feel it is worth mentioning. I saw an episode of 20/20 about the treatment of foreign workers in the UAE, specifically in Dubai. The 20/20 broadcast made clear that the Royal Stables are nicer living quarters than the places where the foreign laborers must live. I believe there is a complete report on hrw.org. These reports really bother me a lot. In my mind, it is modern day slavery. It gives me great reason to question the wisdom of Yale’s pursuit. Admittedly I am in the dark as to the relationship between Dubai and Abu Dhabi. I understand that they are both part of the UAE.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 2, 2007 4:11:51 PM