by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 5, 1998
All Rights Reserved.

he president is pleased to receive the vindication he has long been waiting for," said a buoyant press secretary Mike McCurry traveling with the president in Dakar, Senegal. Pumping his fist halfway around the world, the president’s lawyer found it easy to concur with Federal Court Judge Susan Weber Wright’s 40-page ruling dismissing Paula Corbin Jones’ sexual harassment suit against his boss. Exuding confidence Mr. Bennett declared, "I think it is clearly the right decision, and Judge Wright should be complimented on her courage to make the right decision notwithstanding all of the political atmosphere." Choosing her words more carefully, Judge Wright commented, "While the alleged incident in the hotel, if true, was certainly boorish and offensive, the court has found that the governor’s conduct does not constitute sexual assault." That’s a sad critique of the nation’s number-one role model. Commenting further, Judge Wright said, "This is thus not one of those exceptional cases in which a single incident of sexual harassment, such as an assault, was deemed sufficient to state a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment." While it’s a relief to avoid a court proceeding, calling the decision a vindication hardly characterizes the technical realities of case law especially in the problematic area of sexual harassment.

       Contrary to the partisan view, Judge Wright’s decision doesn’t excuse president Clinton’s behavior, it merely says it doesn’t meet the evolving standards used to recover damages under current sexual harassment law. Under personal injury law, a different set of standards would have applied, but the burden of proof would have remained with the plaintiff to prove she sustained recoverable damages. Likewise, had Paula Corbin Jones filed criminal charges against then governor Clinton for lewd conduct, yet another set of criteria would have been used, and the burden of proof would still remain with the plaintiff to prove criminal conduct. As Judge Wright determined, the standards of proof in her courtroom — including Jones’ failure to demonstrate any compromise to her work situation — were simply not there. As USC law professor Chemerinsky recently noted, the Supreme Court is slated to decide whether sexually offensive conduct in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment, regardless of its effects on a plaintiff’s job.

       Despite Judge Wright’s ruling, the verdict is still out on what constitutes sexual harassment. In the Paula Jones’ case, it was his word against hers. Although the president’s team is placing a victorious spin on this latest event, it doesn’t undo the months of adverse publicity surrounding the president’s conduct on this or other matters. Nor does it really erase the perception that the president’s behavior has been far from idyllic. While the polls might seem elevated today, it doesn’t mean that the president’s credibility hasn’t suffered. Those same polls also show that 60% of the American public don’t believe the president is telling the truth, especially about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Many people — on both sides of the isle — think the presidency has been degraded. Regardless of statesman-like diversions into Africa and elsewhere, it doesn’t reverse the swirling cloud of notoriety now dogging the Clinton presidency.

       Although losing some political ground, a philosophical Kenneth Starr remarked, "Judge Wright’s ruling has no effect on our authority, and we will continue working to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible." After the ruling, many have leaped to the inference that the dismissal indicates that all other serious charges must also lack merit and foundation. Reminding ourselves of Judge Wright’s own words, "That the governor’s alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," is certainly no moral exoneration of his behavior. Calling for an end to Judge Starr’s investigation based on the outcome of the Paula Jones’ lawsuit is like expecting Ford to stop rolling cars off their assembly line after making the Edsel. Whether we choose to admit it, the Jones’ case was doomed from the get-go — it was always a case of her word against his. Apart from that, it’s difficult — even under the best of circumstances — to frame any coherent definition of sexual harassment. Add to the mix the fact that these were delayed charges made against an incumbent president and you’ve got, as Mr. Bennett put it, "cotton candy." Regardless of which right-wing group bankrolled Paula Jones and her mouthpiece, her case didn’t meet Judge Wright’s criteria. And that’s all she wrote.

       While it’s tempting to declare victory, the war is not yet over. Having taken the White House’s best shots, Mr. Starr is still on his feet and busily preparing his case against president Clinton. Unlike public opinion polls, the congress must eventually evaluate the merits of the facts assembled by Mr. Starr. Like most methodical prosecutors, he’s trudging through the swampland of innuendo and gossip and trying to ascertain whether his evidence demonstrates unmistakable violations of the law. Ultimately, it won’t be up to Mr. Starr or public opinion polls to evaluate the evidence. That job will be left to elected officials, all of whom took the same solemn oath and are obligated to discharge their constitutional duties. Whatever leaks might have been attributed to Mr. Starr’s office, the substance of his investigation remains unknown. Although he’s being urged to fish or cut bait, no one can second guess the merits of his inquiry into wrongdoing at the White House. With Paul Corbin Jones no longer a distraction, the office of the independent counsel seems refocused on finishing its work.

       Despite Judge Wright’s decision, it’s not yet time for high-fives in the Clinton camp. Like most battles, sometimes fattening-up on the easy ones creates a sense of false security. Public declarations by Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Clinton proclaiming exoneration might be premature and even ill-advised. Certainly winning the Jones’ battle is a welcome relief, but Judge Starr’s investigation continues to roll on. By playing his cards close to his chest, Kenneth Starr’s quiet diplomacy is bound to create more uneasiness at the White House. For those closely following these late rounds, one thing’s for certain: the fat lady’s a long way from singing.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.