If you want a little background on why Kenneth Starr is having trouble at Baylor University where he has served as president since 2010, the Dallas Morning News recently did a pretty comprehensive piece on the matter. It’s really about how the school has handled allegations of sexual assault, many of which have been made against players on their football team, some of whom have been convicted. There are reports that the university’s Board of Regents has fired Starr after receiving an independent evaluation from an outside law firm.
It’s a little jarring to see Starr in so much hot water for failing to investigate sexual misconduct. It’s even more disorienting to read what he has to say about Bill Clinton:
“President Clinton was and perhaps still is the most gifted politician of the baby boomer generation,” Starr said during a panel discussion with the National Constitution Center for the book “The Presidents and the Constitution: A Living History.”
…Baylor University, where Starr now serves as president, declined to respond to local reports Tuesday that he has been fired by the Board of Regents. The reports come in the wake of a sexual assault scandal at the school involving its football team.
Starr lamented the chapter in his book on Clinton’s presidency was so focused on the investigation he conducted.
“It’s sad that the chapter is so, shall I say, rooted in the unpleasantness, as I used to call it, the recent unpleasantness, that it was so tragic for the country,” Starr said.
The comments from Starr come as the presumptive Republican nominee is increasingly bringing up Bill Clinton’s past to attack his wife, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. Trump has brought up everything from Clinton’s past infidelities to debunked conspiracy theories about the suicide of Vincent Foster, a deputy White House counsel and lawyer for the Clintons.
But despite Trump’s attacks, the man who dug up the most dirt on the Clintons took the opportunity to speak only highly of Clinton and his talent as a politician.
“Leave aside the unpleasantness, his genuine empathy for human beings is absolutely clear,” Starr said of the former president. “It is powerful, it is palpable and the folks of Arkansas really understood that about him — that he genuinely cared.”
Starr also likened Clinton’s philanthropic work post-presidency to that of Jimmy Carter, calling [it] “redemptive.”
At the Washington Post, reporter Michelle Boorstein tackles some of the larger questions raised by the scandal. Under Starr’s leadership, Baylor’s football and basketball programs have excelled, but this focus on athletics may have come at a higher cost at Baylor than elsewhere because of the university’s conservative attitude toward human sexuality.
The school maintains a status as one of the nation’s most visible, ambitious Christian universities. Some say Baylor is for evangelicals what the University of Notre Dame is for Catholics and Brigham Young is for Mormons; that is, their flagship.
For such religious schools, the question is how to balance the country’s encouragement of sexual assault victims to come forward with campus rules that restrict sexual behavior and, as a result, often inhibit open discussion. Baylor’s sexual conduct policy says it expects students to express sexual intimacy “in the context of marital fidelity.”
“This raises questions about whether serious religious universities can take part in sports at the highest levels,” said Terry Mattingly, a columnist who is part of a prominent family of Baylor graduates and who founded a journalism center at the Council for Christian Colleges and University. “It could make it harder to talk about it.”
Until 1974, women weren’t even allowed to wear pants on Baylor’s campus, so it always seems to be operating behind the times. There’s a broader problem with top athletes and coaches getting held to a lax standard that affects all universities with major sports programs. We certainly saw that in a different context at Penn State. But Baylor’s extreme social conservatism may not be very compatible with big time sports, and it certainly presents additional challenges for women who want to report sexual assaults.
The problem here may extend beyond that to not doing enough to help the women who did come forward.
In any case, Ken Starr is in trouble for keeping his nose too much out of other people’s sexual matters and he’s praising Bill Clinton pretty emphatically.
This has been the strangest of political years, and it’s not even half over, yet.
Just PermaGov business as usual, Booman.
Writ small, it’s just like the Mafia. Rival gangs hunt and peck one another for primacy in various neighborhoods. This goes on and on in relatively peaceful times. But…under attack? Suddenly it’s OUR thing. Cosa NOSTRA!!!
And believe me…the PermaGov is under attack. It has been thoroughly Trumped and Bernied over the preceding year or so.
So now?
So nu?
HRC has proven her fealty to the Bosses of all bosses and the attack dogs that were once set upon her own gang are now acting as guard dogs for that same gang.
Just PermaGov business as usual.
Only..they appear to have morphed into The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.
Watch.
AG
P.S. Thank you, Jimmy Breslin!!! I always loved your stuff.
Loved the last cartoon but couldn’t read the signature.
“We Clintons have lots of experience being under sniper fire!”
AG
Oh.
There’s a signature? I can’t read it either.
AG
Would like the cartoonist to get credit. OTOH, maybe he/she wants to hide from retaliation.
Biggest applause line of that debate?
Team HRC thanks you for highlighting Starr today. For pointing out that he’s a hypocrite (more like a gunslinger for hire but political junkies tend not to recognize the difference), but also that he should now be listened to because he’s decided that Bill Clinton is the most gifted Democratic politician in decades. Funny how BHO managed to get a majority of the vote in both of his elections and WJC didn’t in either of his.
Like many political thugs that are past their “use by” dates, he doesn’t need his opponents to take him down. He’ll manage that on his own and his opponents can safely ignore him as we’ve been doing for well over a decade.
Bill Clinton is truly a gifted politician and the fact that he got a plurality and not a majority of the popular vote in both his elections as Obama did doesn’t detract from that. I recollect that we had viable third party candidates in 1992 and 1996. I don’t believe that BHO was faced with that. Those were altogether different elections.
Of course, it could be argued that Clinton benefited from the Perot Third Party vote in 1992, but the 18% of the vote that Perot received certainly explains why neither Clinton nor GHWB got a popular vote majority.
In 96 Clinton received just under 50% of the vote and Perot got a bit over 8%. Logically, Clinton would have received enough of those third party votes to have topped 50%. It could also be argued that BHO benefited from the unpopular GWB Presidency and war in 2008.
I offer these not to criticize BHO for whom I proudly voted and campaigned in 2008 and 2012,but rather in defense of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Both the Clintons receive little support and a whole bunch of criticism in the comments here. I aim to provide just a bit of balance.
Logically, Clinton would have received enough of those third party votes to have topped 50%.
Why would that be logical conclusion?
Check out Arkansas (in thousands):
’92: (total votes – 949)
WJC – 596
GHWB – 337
Perot – 99
’96: (total – 874)
WJC – 475
Dole- 325
Perot- 70
’00: (total 909)
Gore -423
GWB – 472
It logically follows that if Clinton received 49.2% of the popular vote in 1996 and Perot received 8.4%, then Clinton would have received at least .8% of the vote that Perot received had Perot not entered the race. Thereby giving Clinton a majority of the popular vote. I don’t think it is illogical to think that not all of Perot’s votes would have gone to Dole had the former not entered the race as a third party candidate.
This is Bizarro World stuff of the highest quality. (Not your fault, Booman.)
It is impossible to for an institution to police improprieties in the carrying out of X because the institution sets very high standards re the practice of X.
Whut??
What they really mean is, “We claim to have really high standards and we demonstrate the existence of our really high standards by occasionally throwing a nebbishy nobody against the wall. Problem is, when non-nebbishy non-nobodies violate our standards, we really have no idea what to do.” In other words, there are no actual standards, just theater about what standards would be like if we actually had any.
I didn’t respect Ken Starr’s opinion 20 years ago and I don’t now.
The issue of sexual assault at colleges is significant and controversial enough without dragging politics in unnecessarily. Mentioning it as a throwaway in a politics story is a disservice to your readers.