Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Jodie Chester, Editor Marc Harrell, Business manager Gerry Doyle, Managing editor Jamie Holman, Retail sales manager Ryan Koerner, Managing editor Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
4A
Wednesday, September 23, 1998
Editorials
Explicitness of Starr report vital; Clinton deserves embarrassment
The nature of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky is now common knowledge, thanks to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report to the House of Representatives.
The graphic nature of the report and videotaped testimony has stirred debate about whether such explicit details had to be included in the report. Unfortunately, these details were necessary to show that the president may have committed a crime.
In the president's depositions in the Paula Jones case, prosecutors asked him whether he had ever had sexual relations with Lewinsky. The president said he did not. However, ensuing testimony from Lewinsky contradicted his denial.
According to the definition given to
Clinton's denial of sex by a narrowly tailored definition left Starr no other choice.
Clinton, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of that person. Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
Given the details of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, it's clear the president did not give a legally accurate account in his depositions. Although the graphic details in Starr's report may be
nummiting, they are indeed warranted. President Clinton repeatedly made vague statements in an attempt to avoid prosecution. Starr had to show that these vague statements were legally inaccurate.
The events Starr describes so thoroughly are quite shocking and embarrassing to the president. We, as citizens, should be even more shocked, embarrassed and disgusted that the leader of our nation would not only commit such improprieties but also lie to us about them.
The Starr investigation was costly, tedious and a distraction from important issues, but it was an unfortunate necessity. Nobody in the United States, especially the president, should expect special consideration in matters of the law.
Chris Borniger for the editorial board
Starr report demoralizes nation, office
Out of respect for the president, his family, American citizens and the country, Kenneth Starr should not have focused on graphic sexual details in his report and videotaped questioning. The infamous report and testimony are too detailed, too personal and too irrelevant to be broadcast to the entire nation.
Although the report did prove that Clinton had lied under oath and that he was not in moral alignment with the values of the nation, the American people did not need to know the details of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Rather than publishing the explicit details of every sexual encounter, it would have sufficed to publish a toned-down account of acts performed in the only place relevant to the presidency, the Oval Office.
Releasing graphic details of Clinton's sex life will do the country more harm than good.
Because of the Starr report, the American people now officially know that their president is dishonest. The presidency of the United States is supposed to be the most respect-commanding office in the world and Clinton the most respected man. When the entire nation knows details of his sex life that most only would share with a close friend, how is Clinton to effectively run the country?
Stars should have thought about what would happen to the nation should he release his report. He should have taken into account that the report would erase any shred of reverence left
for the president of the United States. He never considered that graphic details might demoralize the nation and leave the people thirsting for more smut about their president.
Above all, the explicit information in the Starr report is superflous gossip that makes no difference about whether Clinton is an effective president. The proof that he has obstructed justice on 11 counts is relevant and worthy of the people's attention. What he did in the heat of romantic passion is not.
Although Clinton deserves ridicule, he did not deserve to have his intimate encounters published to the world. Starr should not have released his entire case, for not only has he destroyed a man, but he has weakened the office of the president and demoralized a nation.
Emilv Hughey for the editorial board
Kansan staff
Ann Premer . . . Editorial
Tim Harrington . . Associate Editorial
Aaron Marvin . News
Gwen Olson . News
Aaron Knopf . Online
Matt Friedrichs . Sports
Kevin Wilson . Associate sports
Marc Sheforgen . Campus
Laura Roddy . Campus
Lindsey Henry . Features
Bryan Volk . Associate features
Roger Nomer . Photo
Corie Waters . Photo
Angie Kuhn . Design, graphics
Melissa Ngo . Wire
Sara Anderson . Special sections
Laura Vezaye . news clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Stacia Williams ... Assistant retail
Brandi Byram ... Campus
Micah Kafitz ... Regional
Ryan Farmer ... National
Matt York ... Marketing
Stephanie Krause ... Production
Matt Thomas ... Production
Traci Meisenheimer ... Creative
Tenley Lane ... Classified
Sara Cropper ... Zone
Nicolle Farrell ... Zone
Jon Schittt ... Zone
Shannon Curran ... Zone
Matt Lopez ... Zone
Brian Allers ... PR/ Intern manager
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
“Reforms should begin at home and stay there.” — Anonymous
**Letters:** Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
Guest columns? Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kanson newsroom, 111 Staufer-Flint Hall. The Kanson reserves the right to edit cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ann Premer (premer@kanson.com) or Tim Harrington (tharrington@kanson.com) at 864-4810. If you have general questions or comments, email the page staff (opition@kanson.com) or call 864-4810.
How to submit letters and guest columns
Perspective
Clinton needs to take himself, lies out of office
I will come right out and say it—I've never been a huge Clinton fan. But the president's conduct has been serious enough that it should provoke outrage in every political circle.
Carrie Johnson opinion@kansan.com
When Clinton swore under oath, he was staking his honor on the truth of what was to come from his lips. By reneging on that sacred promise to tell the truth, his personal and professional honor have been bulldozed into a latrine.
But let's get off the sex. His affair with Monica Lewinsky itself is not the problem. His outright lies to the public are not the problem. Although those actions were wrong, neither of those actions were crimes. Lying under oath, however, is a crime.
From the way the media and Clinton's defenders are spinning it, the uninformed American may think the whole fiasco is about sex, pizza, an intern, sex, more sex and a cigar. Now before you start spouting off about how Bill's private life is none of the public's business and that we should let Hillary worry about where he puts his Executive Branch, let's look at the facts.
Clinton knows he lied under oath. No amount of smoke-blowing with legalese steamanigans will change that. Even under the definition of sexual relations that Clinton claims to have used in his answers, he lied about his activities and perjured himself. The only reason he denies perjuring himself is because to admit to it would be to open the way for the legal repercussions that would surely follow.
If Clinton had only confessed to the affair earlier and told the truth, his problems would be exponentially smaller. Not only has he humiliated himself by cheating with a woman young enough to be his daughter and lied to the American people — but worse, he has shown total disregard for the American justice system by lying under oath. Such behavior is reprehensible.
Clinton is a perjurer, a coward and a disgrace to our nation. If he does not have the decency to step down, then Congress has a duty to begin impeachment proceedings.
Under oath in the Paula
Jones case, Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with intern Monica Lewinsky.
First, her story fits with the evidence, and second, would she really keep coming back for more if she wasn't getting anything but a "thank you, Monica" out of the deal? Then Clinton lied — even under his own narrow interpretation of the Jones case definition.
The definition of sexual relations used in that case included the following (quoted from the Starr report): [A] person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes — (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person . . .
Starr said "Contact" meant intentional touching either directly or through clothing.
Appearing before the grand jury last month, Clinton refused to give details about the specific nature of his activities with Lewinsky, but said those activities did not meet the legal definition of sexual relations.
In essence, Clinton said that if Lewinsky performed oral sex on him, then that does not mean that he was having sexual relations with her; she was having sexual relations with him, but he was not since he was only touched by her mouth.
Johnson is an Oklahoma City sophomore majoring in English.
However, Lewinsky's story is different. She says that he was more than just a passive observer in the affair and he enjoyed touching
her breasts with his hands and mouth and her genitals with his hands both through clothing and directly.
rake a look at Lewinsky's testimony and
judge for yourself.
Feedback
Abortion-rights activists praised
Every member of the University community who values free, open debate should praise the folks who are peacefully but vigorously protesting the pathetic "prolife" photo murals now defacing Strong Hall's lawn.
Despite cold rain and a limited budget, several dozen KU students mobilized quickly on Monday to offer a powerful but peaceful rebuttal to the lies and hate spewed by the so-called "Center for Bio-Ethical Reform."
Though the students lack the outsiders' financial and media resources, they do know the power of free speech and righteous passion.
I hope other members of the University community who value our constitutional rights will join the peaceful witnesses over the next few days. This cynical media spectacular, doubtless funded and organized by the same kinds of zealots who harass women and their families at reproductive health clinics should provoke a vigorous campaign on many levels.
Historians should expose the lie that equates the Holocaust with family-planning free from state dictation. Lawyers should explain just why our Constitution empowers women to decide the most fundamental issues of their lives. Doctors should unmask the multiple deceptions at work in these ghastly photos.
Kansans together should make sure this experience leaves all of us more aware of our individual rights and community responsibilities.
Karl Brooks Lawrence graduate student
Anti-abortion photos too graphic
I notice that the photographs in the anti-abortion protest were too graphic to be on but the cover of the Kansan - convenient placement of bodies to cover up the images... So if they need to be censored from your newspaper, why are they allowed on huge signs ON
CAMPUS? Regardless of your opinion on the subject of abortion, the photos are disgusting, and should not be forced upon people.
Rebecca Fenton Woy Woy, Australia junior
Abortion doesn't equal genocide
If this is a University sponsored activity, I would like to voice my protest right now. No one has the right to make anyone feel as uncomfortable as my friends and I were made to feel by those images.
The focus of my anger is the pro-life displays that were in front of Strong Hall on Monday. I want to ask the people behind the offensive displays: What were you thinking? What kind of rational train of thought leads one to declare a moral correctness by posting seven-feet-tall posters of bloody fetuses, internal organs, dead Jewish people and dead Black people.
I saw these images as I was on my way to class in Wescoe and was horrified. The "warning" signs posted on either side of Strong Hall don't exactly serve any purpose when these images are placed somewhere you have to be anyway.
The pictures are so large that you can't avoid seeing them if you happen to be on Wesco Beach eating lunch. It seems that the people who arranged the display made the mistake of believing that if you can arise disgust in people then you have made your point; no debate necessary. It just doesn't work that way.
There are a lot of things out there that disgust people but that doesn't mean they prove anything. Many people would probably be disgusted if I posted a giant photo of a dissected human body, myself included. Does it then follow that we shouldn't dissect human bodies to save or better human lives? No. What it means is that we find tasteless and offensive to look at dead bodies not that is necessarily morally wrong that they exist.
But maybe some people will say that this type of display is necessary to leo peo
ple know just what an abortion is, to remind them of what is going on.
Well I have wto basic responses to that. First, is there anybody out there who doesn't know what an abortion is? Is there anyone out there that really doesn't understand that a human fetus looks like a human being? The gruesome images tried to bypass important issues within abortion by shocking and disgusting the public into agreement.
To further support the proposition that these photos were only displayed for shock value is the fact that they were displayed with other images which are unrelated to abortion. A pile of dead Jewish people in a wagon with a swastika in the corner, two dead Black people hanging from a tree. Is this a subtle way to compare pro-choicers to Nazis and lynchers? How do you justify this comparison? You offer the shocking comparison for all to see but an explanation isn't posted.
No one knows for sure when life begins. We don't know if fetuses can feel pain from being aborted or if they ever even have a consciousness to harm. Painlessly stopping a life before it begins is different than purposefully torturing the life out of a definitely alive person.
I'm sure there aren't very many people out there who will need this distinction but I will give a couple of features that distinguish prochoicers from Nazis and lynchers.
In comparing abortion to hate crimes such as the Holocaust and lynchings another problem arises. Prochoicers don't hate fetuses. Hate is a very necessary element in a hate crime. There can't even be a shred of an argument to say that prochoicers are like Nazis and lynchers, or that they are promoting genocide.
Genocide aims at the extinction of a race or group. Does anyone think that prochoicers wish to make all fetuses extinct? No, they believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to bring human life into this world and that force and coercion is the wrong way.
---
Isa Gonzalez Parsons senior