Re: Harvard dean fired in discrimination of porn or depression?
Mon, 24 May 1999 06:57:24 EDT

In a message dated 5/20/99 2:13:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

<< I like how they segueway from stigmatizing perfectly-legal images to
the "lesser charge" of merely being depressed. Glad to know either
one is no shield in the face of fundraising scandal. Answer? Buy a
fricking CD-ROM burner... RK]

Sounded to me like the depression came after the fact, so it was not really a
factor (much less a charge) in his resignation.

This whole thing harkens back to the (newly lionized) WJC and his
questionable behavior earlier this year (God - was it THIS year? Seems EONS
ago!). What should our expectations be regarding the character of an
appointed or elected official? For me, the line is drawn when the private
behavior influences their public, and vice versa. I watched last winter as
our President weilded his considerable elected-official influence to cover
his personal hiney.

This dean, on the other hand, didn't seem to be hiding anything. I don't see
much intersect between his personal viewing of pornography and his duties in
his official post. Hypocricy, maybe, but since when is anyone fired for that?
Our employed set would be the n(d)ull one.

Can't wait to see how Civil Libertarians, at the expense of poor Dean
Theimann (who would want this whole thing buried 10 miles deep), pull this
incident out for public dissection.

(A media circus in the making. You just know Greta is chomping at the bit!)


PS A personal note: In the media, sex seems to win out over death for
public consumption. The Clinton scandal held our attention for many months;
the Columbine HS shooting is already beginning to wane. Well, the shooting
has morphed into a law-making opportunity party, with the NRA being the
pinata of choice.