Are we debating Hillary for the right reasons?

Yale finally announced the name of its 300th Class Day speaker—but her identity remains a mystery. Erstwhile colleagues have characterized her either as warm and caring or ambitious and mean-spirited. On a recent episode of Wall Street Week, Editor of U.S. News & World Report Mort Zuckerman classified her as having "crossed over the line" by participating in "real partisan politics" as First Lady. Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton Quarterly routinely rushes to defend her as "independent" and "confident," a victim of deep-seated prejudices against women who wield power and influence.

Over the past week, I have had the chance to view, with both amusement and disgust, Yale students' reactions to this controversial figure. Some of my most conservative peers claim to feel shocked and betrayed that Yale would even consider inviting such a liberal lightning rod. These folks must have drank too much during Bulldog Days; this campus is almost as liberal as Bob Jones University is conservative. Others argue, with a flourish of the Tarot cards, that Hillary Clinton, LAW '73, will give a boring or politically charged speech. Although she theoretically could leave the podium to scattered boos, she could also deliver the most rousing and inclusive address since Gettysburg. No one can know. The only thing we know for sure—and, for some critics of Senator Clinton, the only thing that matters—is that this polemical and openly ambitious figure also happens to be a woman.

Zuckerman's claim on Wall Street Week that Hillary has somehow "crossed the line" not only caused me to drop my remote control and throw up all over my Brooks Brothers casualwear; it also left me wondering just where this line exists. Thinly veiled misogyny like Zuckerman's suggests that it lies somewhere between being powerful and being a woman. Incredibly, some of our Yale brethren seem to agree. Sarah Maserati, BK '01, articulated an impossible double standard in Tuesday's Yale Daily News (YDN) when she accused Clinton of "aggrandizing her own power and influence" because she stood by her husband despite his sexual indiscretions [YDN, 3/27/01, "Hillary does not deserve to deliver Class Day address"]. If Sen. Clinton had divorced her husband, might not the accusations have been the same?

I have spoken with some of Yale's more vocal Hillary opponents. They were clearly intelligent people, but what they said troubled me. Former President of the Yale College Republicans Howard Clark, BK '01, reasoned that Clinton was simply unqualified and has done little with her life as a mere junior senator. Fair enough, until we remember that it was her deep involvement with her husband's health care initiative that raised much of the Republican ire against her in the first place. Clark continued to say that while Clinton may represent the "controversial figure of the year," her appearance is more "cute" than substantive. No Senator or First Lady deserves the same moniker that might attach itself to Britney Spears.

But if dismissive, at least Clark was consistent. Daniel Mindus, TC '01, seems unclear on exactly why he's circulating an anti-Hillary petition to begin with. In explaining why his characterization of Clinton as someone who vilifies her opponents should be pertinent when all politicians sling mud, Mindus replied that her "arrogant attitude" was the real reason for his distaste. He couldn't name specific examples beyond Clinton's reference to small businesses as "undercapitalized," but added that "it wasn't just the words, it was the way she said it." And what way was that? Standing up? Attacks on Clinton's "manner" suggest she has transgressed the boundaries of womanhood simply by participating in the political fray.

Like every other Yale Class Day, the 2001 version is not likely to be a model of widespread joy, spiritual unity, or even good weather. But it also should not be a place for ad hominem attacks against the keynote speaker. Although Clinton should expect criticism of her policies and beliefs, she should not be cited for "arrogance" and criticized for being "cold." These issues may be germane when choosing a wife—or a husband—but not when evaluating a speaker or a Senator. And precisely because Clinton is successful, aloof, and self-serving, conservative and liberal Yalies alike should at least respect her as one of their kind. Do we really want another non-controversial speaker like David Gergen, ES '63, to "unify" us to sleep? Yalies need not fear or despise this woman simply because, like many other major political figures, she seems enigmatic and complex. After all, that's what the real world looks like anyway.

Back to Opinion...