THE CHOICE TO RESIGN

Not such a long time ago, we liked Bill Clinton. For the last six years we have stood by his agenda. And it is because we still stand by that agenda--because we still care about things like poverty and child care, affirmative action and gay rights--that today we call for Bill Clinton to resign.

Clinton has demeaned the office of the presidency. He has made those of us who once supported him feel a deep sense of betrayal, and we have had enough. The president should resign because nobody--not members of Congress, and not the citizens who elected him--can or should be expected to take his cue anymore.

By dint of his own choices, the president is no longer capable of doing the job we elected him to do. It is time for him to make one final choice for the good of the nation: the choice to resign. Sept. 15, 1998

STOP THE MADNESS

If there were any doubt that President Clinton would survive this latest crisis, that doubt was buried along with the slew of losing Republican candidates in the midterm elections. While presumably Congress must go through the motions dictated by law, nobody believes that these impeachment hearings will conclude in any serious result. They are a waste of time and, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

It is deeply disappointing that President Clinton's possibly illegal and definitely immoral behavior has been glossed over in favor of partisan bickering, but for better or for worse, he is here to stay.   Nov. 24, 1998

THE WRONG WAY OUT

Clinton's pathetic dalliance with an intern, even if he lied about it, does not warrant impeachment--either in our eyes or in the eyes of the American people who twice elected him to the presidency.

If the House decides to impeach the president on Thursday, a political majority which despises Bill Clinton and wants to remove him from office at any cost will have prevailed, at the expense of the integrity of the Constitution. Congress would use the constitutional procedure of impeachment as a substitute for censure. This amounts to a grave abuse of their power: To impeach Clinton this week would be to belittle the awesome mechanism our founders provided for the removal of our most powerful officer.   Dec. 14, 1998

THE SENATE'S DUTY

For the lame-duck House Republican leadership of the last Congress to have pushed through the articles of impeachment--to have turned a crime so low that any ordinary American would never be prosecuted for it into a "high crime" on par with treason--is an abuse of their constitutional power that voters should not soon forget.

We hope the Senate will vote to end the trial soon after it has begun, whether by a motion to dismiss the charges or, if necessary, a compromise censure resolution. But any compromise must be forged carefully. Any resolution of this mess that lends legitimacy to the articles of impeachment would be a disservice to the nation.   Jan. 6, 1999

JUSTICE SERVED

It wasn't exactly impeachment, but President Clinton has finally been punished for his wrongdoing in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled Clinton was in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Perhaps more than anything, the ruling was a victory for common sense and the sanctity of the English language. The line between truth and falsehood--so obvious to most of the American people despite the efforts of the president and his legal team--has finally been affirmed by an official voice.   April 15, 1999

A TRAGEDY OF APATHY

The world has stood by silently for the past year while the Serbian army has massacred Albanian civilians in the province of Kosovo. Like countless generations before us facing similar tragedies, we have not answered the cry of a persecuted people.

Thankfully, the administration has moved closer to the launch of air-strikes against Serb positions. In 1995, similar strikes helped bring about the lull in hostilities that allowed the negotiation of the Dayton Peace Accords. We hope that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic yields to diplomatic pressure, but if military force is necessary, so be it.   Oct. 7, 1998

NATO'S STRATEGY PROBLEM

The costs of this conflict, both in terms of resources and human life, are too great for the NATO countries to be satisfied with the rate of progress so far. Either a qualitative change is required in NATO strategy--military or diplomatic--or Clinton and the other NATO leaders must provide a cogent explanation of how the current strategy will lead to success.

Milosevic has yet to show signs of weakness, and there is little consensus on how to proceed. There is a strong sense of frustration and impatience with the NATO effort, and that frustration could have been avoided had Clinton and other NATO leaders offered a coherent set of objectives when the air strikes began in March.   May 4, 1999

IN A CLIMATE OF HATE

The Lowell House bells tolled 22 times Monday evening to commemorate the life of Matthew Shepard, a gay student at the University of Wyoming who last week was lured from a bar, brutally beaten and left to die.

For all the progress the nation has made in the nearly 30 years since the birth of the American gay rights movement in 1969, there remains a large and growing homophobia from coast to coast. According to a recent Gallup poll, 59 percent of Americans believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong. And last summer, Senate Majority Trent Lott (R-Miss.) compared homosexuals to Kleptomaniacs and alcoholics.

Of course, not all Republicans are homophobes. Yet it is profoundly disturbing that the party's leadership has so proudly stood up for its least tolerant and most hateful wing.

Blame for Shepard's death must first be laid at the feet of his assailants. Yet the homophobia that seems to be spreading like a plague through American society cannot be ignored. In this climate of intolerance, acts of violence against gays and lesbians are only more likely.

It is in this climate that this week's show of support on campus for gay rights, punctuated by the dozens of signs throughout Harvard Yard proclaiming gay pride, comes as a much-needed reminder that this generation will not give up--not until all Americans are guaranteed their lives, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness.   Oct. 14, 1998

KEEP ROTC OFF CAMPUS

Harvard students in the military's Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program have not been able to take their classes on campus since 1969. Since then, cadets have had to travel to MIT to take their classes. Up until 1994, Harvard helped subsidize the MIT program, but now the University doesn't even do that; the military's don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays violates Harvard's anti-discrimination policy.

All this would change if a group of Undergraduate Council representatives have their way. A new bill would have the council express its support for bringing the program back to campus. We hope the council defeats the bill.

In general the University shouldn't do anything to keep students and much-needed scholarship money apart. But the College's compromise is a reasonable one. In this case, the University is keeping opportunities open to students--only a bus ride along the River--and maintaining its principles.   April 7, 1999

WORTH THE WAIT

For months, students have watched as Princeton, Yale, Stanford and MIT sweetened the financial aid pot. For months, we wondered when Harvard would do the same. Now the College has both met and exceeded our expectations by allocating $9 million more toward financial aid.

Harvard's relative silence on the aid issue for so many months was worrisome. But it now seems that administrators may have merely been taking the time to put together a comprehensive plan that puts Harvard at the forefront of those colleges committed to need-blind admissions policy.   Sept. 17, 1998

SPREADING THE WEALTH

Last week's announcement that the University will increase its endowment payout by 20 percent next year is welcome news. Despite the big numbers involved, though, Harvard is merely returning to its normal spending level--a level many financial analysts agree is quite conservative.

Harvard should consider opening its purse just a little wider and pouring some millions into addressing student concerns: freezing tuition levels at current rates for the next few years; improving student facilities, such as the woefully backward Malkin Athletic Center; hiring more professors to lower the student- faculty ration and continuing to strengthen the financial aid program.   Dec. 7, 1998

VOTE SETON, REDMOND

We enthusiastically endorse Noah Z. Seton '00 for Undergraduate Council president and Kamil E. Redmond '00 for vice president. The Seton-Redmond ticket is the only one that has presented a reasoned, viable vision for how the council can improve the undergraduate experience.

What is most attractive about the Seton-Redmond ticket is their well-balanced platform, backed up by the experience and energy to make it work. Seton and Redmond have a vision that incorporates both progressive issues and student services, a vision that takes what the council of Beth A. Stewart '00 has accomplished in specific, small-scale services.

Seton and Redmond pledge to take the approach that has worked on these smaller issues--working closely with and consistently pressuring the administration in a non-confrontational manner--to those student issues that, as we have long argued, are simply more important: advising, UHS reform and countering the effects of randomization by supporting student groups and thinking about a new student center.   Dec. 8, 1998

A BROKEN PROMISE

The Faculty Council's decision to eliminate the Advanced Placement (A.P.) exemption of the Science Core requirement is a disturbing departure from the Council's stated commitment to reducing requirements.

The Council's reason for eliminating the exemption--that high school A.P. classes do not provide the introduction to scholarly disciplines that the Core classes do--is a poor excuse for burdening students who have strong science backgrounds with yet another, arguably useless, requirement.

Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 opposed the move from a professor's point of view, rightly pointing out in an e-mail message that "only students are affected by it--it requires no more effort on the part of the Faculty (except adding a few more students to a few courses), but it does add a nontrivial burden to the requirements on certain students." Is it too much to ask for the administration to minimize student requirements and reinstate the A.P. science exemption?   Jan. 11, 1999

LOOKING FOR ADVICE

This month's report released by the Standing Committee on Advising and Counseling reveals what we already knew--academic advising at the College is disturbingly inconsistent, with a few departments offering strong guidance and too many doing a poor job.

The Faculty members and student representatives proposed two especially useful plans of attack to improve advising--establishing a minimum standard of quality across all departments and encouraging the appointment of senior Faculty members as head tutors or directors of undergraduate studies.

Harvard takes pride in its decentralized system, and departments hold tight to their autonomy. But if there's one area which should be watched and standardized, it is advising. Without strong prompting from University Hall, some departments may never recognize that their undergraduates deserve careful attention.   Feb. 11, 1999

CELLUCCI'S CAPITAL ERROR

Governor A. Paul Cellucci has proposed a broad bill to make conviction of some 16 categories of murder punishable by death.

Practically speaking, the bill makes little sense. Not only are violent crime rates in Massachusetts much lower than in those states which enforce the death penalty, but they have been declining rapidly in recent years. Capital punishment isn't necessary to deter crime, as Cellucci claims.

But the most pressing practical concern of the bill is its inherent inability to prevent the executions of wrongly convicted inmates. Capital punishment might be acceptable to those whose thirst for revenge clouds their rational sense of universal justice before the law. But the majority of us know better.   Feb. 24, 1999

BLOCKING CLINIC DOORS

The continued violence against abortion clinics and abortion providers is a threat to Americans' constitutional rights. The intimidation and harassment of clinic workers has led to a decline in doctors willing to provide abortions as well as created a culture of fear for those who go to them.

Most anti-abortion activists do not condone these acts, however many of the major anti-abortion groups do not condemn them either. If opponents of abortion rights wish to give their movement any integrity, they must eliminate the violent elements which now conduct terrible acts under their banner.   March 16, 1999

EXCELLENCE ON ICE

Every once in a while, Harvard fields an athletic team that excels on the national level. Sometimes that team is special because it overcame seemingly insurmountable odds with sheer will and determination. But sometimes a team is special not because of one spectacular moment but because it has consistently dominated its competition for the entire season--a team so far ahead of the pack that it seems almost surreal.

Players on the women's hockey team have represented their countries in international tournaments, won Olympic gold medals and shattered school records. But these women represent more than just excellence on the ice. They have become the standard bearers for women's hockey and have embraced the role as ambassadors of their sport. The team has conducted hockey clinics and other activities, attracting players for a game traditionally reserved for the boys. Their role in raising the profile of their sport and sharing their success with their community is what makes these players truly special.   March 24, 1999

WHEN THE DUST SETTLES

The organizers of the Rally for Justice in front of University Hall faced a daunting challenge: How could the three groups protesting each make their cases without overshadowing one another?

The answer still isn't clear. But the multiple aims of the Rally seem to have been completely overshadowed by a decision that was nearly a foregone conclusion--the full Faculty's vote to dismiss D. Drew Douglas, Class of 2000. Given their options, the Faculty made the right choice--to dismiss Douglas. But protestors demanded expulsion, an option which was never before the Faculty. At some point, the Faculty needs to make a policy decision to clarify when expulsion is appropriate. We believe rape deserves the harshest punishment Harvard can impose--expulsion. If, as the administration has argued, dismissal is effectively the same as expulsion, the College needs to clarify this distinction.   March 11, 1999