Lewinsky Scandal Bridges All Disciplines

As Congress prepares to step up its investigation into the President's affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, some of the most sought-after political pundits are airing their views daily in Harvard's classrooms.

Professors from a range of disciplines--including English and women's studies--are joining the fray.

Political Pornography?

One such commentator is Stephen J. Greenblatt, a professor of English whose work focuses on Renaissance literature and culture. Greenblatt recently wrote an op-ed for The New York Times in which he compared the Starr report to a work of great literature.

According to Greenblatt, Americans have been comfortable with graphic descriptions of sex in fictional works for many years. But the Starr report marks a first because the acts it exposes are real.

"The Starr report might be out ahead of what people are willing to tolerate, but its where we've been moving," Greenblatt says. "Americans have been moving for some years toward an increasingly invasive view toward people's private lives."

Still, Greenblatt says Americans are not comfortable with the level of explicit detail that has become available.

The article he first submitted to The New York Times, he says, hinged on one particularly graphic passage from the Starr report. But editors told him they would not reproduce the excerpt in his column, even though they had already published it as part of the full text of the report.

While Greenblatt says he was at first annoyed by the change, he later came to agree with the cut.

"It was better for me not to participate in disseminating this level of detail if I was protesting this level of detail," he says.

Professor of Government Seyla Benhabib, who teaches Moral Reasoning 50: "The Public and Private in Politics, Morality and Law," says the explicit nature of recent political discourse is the result of a long-term change in the social acceptability of public conversations about private affairs.

"There has been an incredible explosion in the last 20-25 years of talking about sex and intimacy," Benhabib says. "The media has led a great revolution."

"Let-it-all-hang-out" television shows, such as The Jerry Springer Show, have caused "a total commercialization and vulgarization of intimacy," she adds.

A Private Affair

But despite intense public interest in the intimate lives of elected officials, private affairs are not to be equated with matters of state, said Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel.

"President Clinton's misconduct--lying about an illicit sexual affair--is deplorable and indefensible but it's not impeachable," Sandel said. "Tawdry though itis, it doesn't undermine the basic structure ofgovernment or the constitutional order."

Benhabib says the legitimacy of the Starrinvestigation is further clouded by the ambiguousprivate status of the President outside of hispolitical office.

"One of the tragic things about the Starrreport is the fact the ordinary rights of privacythat would have been granted any ordinary citizencould not have been invoked by President Clintonbecause of his position," she says.

According to Benhabib, if Clinton's affair hadinvolved the violation of national security--forinstance, if Lewinsky had been a "Russianspy"--Starr's investigation might have been moreappropriate.

Benhabib says she was particularly struck byStarr's ability to subpoena family members totestify against one another in a non-criminalcase.

"These are tactics of totalitarian societies,"she says. "It does create fear in people and itdoes create lack of trust."

Morton J. Horwitz, Warren professor of Americanlegal history, says he believes Starr's aggressiveprosecutorial tactics will lead to an expansion ofprivacy law.

"I think most people were really surprised athow far a prosecutor can go in delving into theprivate lives of people," he says.

"One of the things which shocked me most washearing prosecutors say over and over again thatthis is what prosecutors do all the time."

As a result of such concerns, Horwitz said heexpects privacy laws to expand in the areas ofwiretapping, computer and internet privacy andlimits on grand jury questioning.

But he adds that executive privilege, a currentpoint of contention among legal scholars, might gountouched.

"I think Clinton has, in the short run,discredited [executive privilege]arguments...[because] people think he used sucharguments to cover up bad behavior," Horwitz says.

The Moral of the Story

In addition to debating the legalities ofPresident Clinton's actions and the pursuantinvestigation, some scholars are raising moreelusive moral questions.

Ann Pellegrini '86, assistant professor ofEnglish who teaches Women's Studies 101:"Introduction to Women's Studies: Changing theSubject," says she worries that "discussing theLewinsky scandal under the rubric of sexualharassment leaves the door open to criminalizingsex and sexuality which do not conform to'traditional family values,' whatever those are."

Benhabib says society has morally judgedPresident Clinton even though he may have donenothing legally wrong.

"We have moral expectations which are largerthan those expected by the law," she says.

Still, she adds, the Lewinsky scandal mightultimately allow the President broader moralleeway.

"People are saying we no longer need to see aPresident who is a moral paragon of virtue," shesays. "The President can be like us, not largerthen us or larger than life."

Benhabib describes what she calls"demystification" of the office. "Clinton is thefirst President that people have the sense thathe's not a mythical father figure, but an unrulybrother figure," she says.

But George F. Will, columnist and visitinglecturer on government, says Clinton himself isresponsible for the exposure of his privateaffairs, Will says.

"No one can be happy about the blurring of thedistinction between the public and the privatespheres," he says. "I think almost all Americans,including almost all journalists I know, wouldpush the rewind button on life and go back a yearand beg the President to settle the Paula Jonescase."

But, he adds, it was Clinton himself who"erased the distinction when he lied in the PaulaJones deposition and then, more reprehensibly,after eight months of reflection and planning whenhe lied to the grand jury."

The moral implications of the Lewinsky affair,Will says, will cause Americans to search for aPresident "who won't be an embarrassment whentelevision brings him into our living rooms."

"The dominant desire [of the country] in theyear 2000 is going to be to take a shower, tocleanse itself," he says.

Sandel says the country has altogethermisplaced its moral focus.

Rather than be consumed by the personal affairsof our elected officials, he says, we should beconcerned with the morality of the policies theycreate.

"The excessive preoccupation with the privatevices of public officials reflects the fact thatthere is too little attention in our politicaldebate to the moral dimensions of policy andgovernance.

Benhabib says the legitimacy of the Starrinvestigation is further clouded by the ambiguousprivate status of the President outside of hispolitical office.

"One of the tragic things about the Starrreport is the fact the ordinary rights of privacythat would have been granted any ordinary citizencould not have been invoked by President Clintonbecause of his position," she says.

According to Benhabib, if Clinton's affair hadinvolved the violation of national security--forinstance, if Lewinsky had been a "Russianspy"--Starr's investigation might have been moreappropriate.

Benhabib says she was particularly struck byStarr's ability to subpoena family members totestify against one another in a non-criminalcase.

"These are tactics of totalitarian societies,"she says. "It does create fear in people and itdoes create lack of trust."

Morton J. Horwitz, Warren professor of Americanlegal history, says he believes Starr's aggressiveprosecutorial tactics will lead to an expansion ofprivacy law.

"I think most people were really surprised athow far a prosecutor can go in delving into theprivate lives of people," he says.

"One of the things which shocked me most washearing prosecutors say over and over again thatthis is what prosecutors do all the time."

As a result of such concerns, Horwitz said heexpects privacy laws to expand in the areas ofwiretapping, computer and internet privacy andlimits on grand jury questioning.

But he adds that executive privilege, a currentpoint of contention among legal scholars, might gountouched.

"I think Clinton has, in the short run,discredited [executive privilege]arguments...[because] people think he used sucharguments to cover up bad behavior," Horwitz says.

The Moral of the Story

In addition to debating the legalities ofPresident Clinton's actions and the pursuantinvestigation, some scholars are raising moreelusive moral questions.

Ann Pellegrini '86, assistant professor ofEnglish who teaches Women's Studies 101:"Introduction to Women's Studies: Changing theSubject," says she worries that "discussing theLewinsky scandal under the rubric of sexualharassment leaves the door open to criminalizingsex and sexuality which do not conform to'traditional family values,' whatever those are."

Benhabib says society has morally judgedPresident Clinton even though he may have donenothing legally wrong.

"We have moral expectations which are largerthan those expected by the law," she says.

Still, she adds, the Lewinsky scandal mightultimately allow the President broader moralleeway.

"People are saying we no longer need to see aPresident who is a moral paragon of virtue," shesays. "The President can be like us, not largerthen us or larger than life."

Benhabib describes what she calls"demystification" of the office. "Clinton is thefirst President that people have the sense thathe's not a mythical father figure, but an unrulybrother figure," she says.

But George F. Will, columnist and visitinglecturer on government, says Clinton himself isresponsible for the exposure of his privateaffairs, Will says.

"No one can be happy about the blurring of thedistinction between the public and the privatespheres," he says. "I think almost all Americans,including almost all journalists I know, wouldpush the rewind button on life and go back a yearand beg the President to settle the Paula Jonescase."

But, he adds, it was Clinton himself who"erased the distinction when he lied in the PaulaJones deposition and then, more reprehensibly,after eight months of reflection and planning whenhe lied to the grand jury."

The moral implications of the Lewinsky affair,Will says, will cause Americans to search for aPresident "who won't be an embarrassment whentelevision brings him into our living rooms."

"The dominant desire [of the country] in theyear 2000 is going to be to take a shower, tocleanse itself," he says.

Sandel says the country has altogethermisplaced its moral focus.

Rather than be consumed by the personal affairsof our elected officials, he says, we should beconcerned with the morality of the policies theycreate.

"The excessive preoccupation with the privatevices of public officials reflects the fact thatthere is too little attention in our politicaldebate to the moral dimensions of policy andgovernance.