 | |
| Vol. 24, No. 6 | Oct. 16, 1998 |
| |
| Vol. 24, No. 6 | Oct. 16, 1998 |
By Angela Hoyte
August 17 revelations by the President of an "inappropriate" relationship with Monica Lewinsky transformed a story that had hitherto been fraught with rumor and conjecture into a White House crisis. As charges of perjury and obstruction of justice fly and with an impeachment inquiry imminent, clear concise analysis of the issues has become a precious commodity.
In recent months, Columbia professors have contributed to the national discussion of the issues in stories covering everything from Clinton's legacy and moral leadership in the Presidency to the effects of the scandal on the stock market and the nature of public forgiveness. Following is a short review of some of those stories.
Newsweek's Aug. 17 edition included an article by history professor Alan Brinkley discussing how Clinton's place in history will be affected more by the "peculiarities" of the times than by the impropriety of his actions.
On Aug. 19, an article about Clinton's public apology by Henry Graff, professor emeritus of history, was published by Newsday. In that column, Graff suggested that Clinton's apology, though memorable, did little to engender any real sense of favor or empathy. USA Today published three articles by journalism professor Samuel G. Freedman: "Bill Clinton and Dick Morris, fathers to us all" appeared in the Aug. 20 issue, followed by "Clinton, Starr, other lawyers give the law a bad name" on Sept. 17 and "24 years after Watergate, a need for gravitas" on Sept. 24. Jeremy Waldron of the Law School and Marshall Loeb, Columbia Journalism Review, both contributed stories to the Daily News; Waldron explaining why Clinton should resign and Loeb defending the fairness of media coverage of the scandal.
Law professor Gerard Lynch was widely quoted: In the Sept. 12 issue of the Daily News, he argued that the President's behavior was "not the kind of conduct for which an ordinary person would be indicted-much less a President... impeached." He was also quoted in The Washington Post, Newsday and the New York Post in stories about Clinton's defense strategy and questions of perjury. The Washington Post Sept. 15 article examined the legal predicament the President faces if he admits to lying in his grand jury testimony and the political repercussions of not being totally forthright. In that story, Lynch said "if we're going to put our political leaders in a position where they're going to have to conduct their lives like suspects in a criminal investigation, then we shouldn't be surprised that they conduct their lives as subjects of criminal investigations."
The Wall Street Journal chose an interesting angle in approaching the President's apology, looking at questions of forgiveness and trust. Brinkley, while noting that presidents have always been expected to have more moral fortitude than their constituents, stated that Clinton is an example of how much the Presidency in the late 1990s is changing.
In the same Wall Street Journal article, religion professor Randall Balmer placed Clinton's apology within the spectrum of the President's Protestant religion where the process of asking forgiveness is a "private act... neither public or ritualized." Reacting to the President's claim -that his actions were a matter for him to address with his family and God-Balmer suggested that the President had invoked Protestant theology, in which there is a strong belief that God is the primary instrument of forgiveness.
English professor Ann Douglas, law professors Michael Dorf and Eben Moglen, and visiting professor George Stephanopoulos entered the public dialogue in articles appearing in local and national newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Newsday.
Television news has also employed the expertise of Columbia professors. Journalism professor James Carey appeared on CBS Saturday Morning in a piece about the propriety of journalists asking the President about the Lewinsky matter at a press conference in Russia. Carey felt that the questions were rude, damaging to the credibility of journalists and "an embarrassment in the sense that it shows the obsession of the journalists with the story."