Kenneth W. Starr—the lead prosecutor of President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal—arrived at Harvard Law School yesterday night to deliver a talk on the Roberts court and its decisions on business cases, but during the course of the conversation, Starr’s controversial decision to work towards upholding Proposition 8 generated mixed views among students.

Starr, a former United States solicitor general, was named as lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8 last December. The California proposition, which eliminated same-sex couples’ right to marry, has remained a lightning rod of controversy since it was passed in November.

While Starr did not mention his position during the course of his talk, a handout was distributed before he spoke that included a newspaper article about Starr’s appointment to the counsel, and his work on the issue came up during the question and answer session when a student asked him about it.

“California has a rich tradition of progressive popularism, where people decided they could amend the constitution by popular vote,” Starr said. He did not mention why he decided to take on the case, or what his personal position was on the issue.

Students had mixed reactions to Starr’s position on Proposition 8.

Alexander A. Crohn, a member of Harvard of Lambda—the Law School’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender student group—said that Starr’s prominence may influence the outcome of the issue.

“I respect how Ken Starr follows his beliefs,” Crohn, who is a third year law student, said. But he added that Ken Starr’s choice to take on this case “gives it a lot of popularity, and an unfair advantage to upholding Proposition 8.”

Sajid Sharif, a member of the Federalist Society, which was the organization that hosted Starr’s talk, disagreed.

“It’s good that the people have representation and that Ken Starr has taken on this case,” he said.

Another student noted that she respected Starr’s decision to stay true to his beliefs even though he has adopted many high-profile cases during the course of his career.

“Christianity is a huge factor for me personally, and that he has managed to go so far while still holding onto his beliefs is very impressive,” Katheryn E. Klimko, a first year law student, said. “It was very powerful how he talked about learning to be content whatever the circumstances.”

Before the question and answer session, Starr’s speech focused on the landscape of the court, and how there are growing generational gaps on the bench.

He pointed out how Justice John Paul Stevens is 88 and how several other judges are in their 70s, but how John Roberts, for example, is only 53 and may potentially serve for another 30 years on the court.

Starr also noted that business decisions have a tendency to unify the justices.

Starr described the court as “business friendly,” and on business matters “transphilosophical and transideological.”