WHEN MORAL Majority leader Jerry Falwell spoke at Harvard Law School this week, the last question from the floor got the loudest applause.
The question--one in a series which gave more information than it sought--almost wasn't asked. The semi-professional brown nosers who run the Law School Forum had ended the question period and were anxious to whisk Falwell away to some exclusive function.
But when the would-be questioner said she was "outraged" and "disgusted" and demanded a response, Falwell moved toward the microphone. He smiled a little, looking very comfortable.
The woman's disgust was directed at Falwell's dismissal of a questioner at an earlier Law School appearance. Two years ago, a questioner identified herself as a "Jewish, lesbian feminist," and then attacked Falwell's opposition to abortion when he last spoke.
In retort, Falwell told the woman that "of all the people in this room, you have the least to worry about abortion." In subsequent retellings of the story to newspapers and magazines, the reverend has described the woman as one God made just as ugly as He could and as big enough to play football for Ohio State.
The irreverent reverend stepped way out of line with those remarks. When his more recent questioner stopped reading her typed text, he admitted as much--kind of. He explained that public speakers like to have their fun. Alluding to this new protagonist's close-cropped hair, masculine attire and strident manner, Falwell said he would probably describe her in similar terms.
"YOU'VE GOTTA love Falwell," an Undergraduate Council jock told me as we crossed Mass. Ave, after the forum. Although Falwell began his career in a church that would have excluded my friend on the basis of race, he wasn't entirely off the mark.
I'm happy Falwell is travelling around, endorsing candidates for office and entertaining me in the process. I'm even happier when the candidates lose. But they don't lose as much as they should anymore. That's at least partly because Falwell has tried to hide his prejudice and insensitivity for the sake of legitimacy on the national scene.
While that is not surprising, at a place like Harvard Falwell should find real opposition. Instead, he found an Ames Courtroom crowd that acted like a bunch of utility infielders on one of liberalism's division two teams.
One of the Harvard questioners dramatically quoted Falwell's explanation that Jews enjoy privileged positions in society because of their "God-given gift" for making money. He then read similar remarks attributed to Moral Majority lieutenants. The questioner asked Falwell to repudiate the remarks and called on him to apologize publicly.
Falwell faltered a bit and talked about "growing in sensitivity" during the seven years since he explained the nature of God's favor for his chosen people to a group of anti-Semites on the steps of the Mississippi State House.
Then the reverend, without any equivocation, provided the requested apology.
WHETHER FALWELL had grown in sensitivity or in savvy as he moved from his segregated church in rural Virginia to the magazine lists of influential Americans wasn't really a question.
Instead, the crowd speculated about the enormity of the evil in Falwell's true heart and seemed particularly satisfied that they could see through his slick presentation.
What was lost amid the many citations of the 1958 sermon--in which Falwell said "the true negro doesn't want integration" and that "the hand of Moscow" could be seen behind the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision--was the disturbing fact that most of those who listen to Falwell's Old Time Gospel Hour don't see past the lavish tabernacle and the choir's shimmering white robes.
Falwell puts forth abortion, homosexuality and pornography as an evil troika menacing society. And Democratic leaders try to put forth "family values" of their own.
Meanwhile, a few who think they see the corruption at Falwell's core--like those at the Law School Forum--are interested only in congratulating one another, and training for big careers in big law firms.
Read more in Opinion
No Clearance for Clarence