Since President Clinton first took office, taxpayers have footed a bill in excess of $30 million to fund a variety of investigations into “Whitewater-gate,” “Travel-gate,” and “File-gate.” Though none of these investigations has resulted, so far, in charges or punishments, we the people have been privy to every detail, witness to every hearing. Clinton, as we all know, was re-elected and continues to speak at length about his ideas, his agendas, and his visions for the future of the country. It appears, given everything else, that a majority of us still wants to hear what he has to say.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee because he pleaded guilty to misuse of funds. Had he not agreed to plead, who knows what additional charges might have been lodged. But even though he admitted his guilt, foregoing more extensive investigations, the Ethics Committee thought that public hearings were an important part of the censure process.

Newt said he was sorry. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t, but he’s still the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America.

Then we have the Beardshear 8. They are students and graduate students — certainly among the least powerful people in society, in Washington D.C. terms anyway. But on this campus, some of these students hold offices as GSB senators and leaders of other student organizations. In closed hearings, they have been found guilty of standing, unauthorized, in a building and speaking.

Worse, they spoke boisterously. And they didn’t leave when they were first asked to do so. Now their campus offices will be stripped from some of them because they had the audacity to break the rules.

Let’s review. What do these three situations have in common? Not much on the face of it. Clinton’s crimes, should he be found guilty of anything, will certainly be judged horrendous and self-serving. Gingrich’s opportunism, in which he used his position for personal gain, breached public trust and brought shame to a whole branch of the legislative body. The Beardshear 8’s civil disobedience, born of frustration and committed in the spirit of social justice, amounts to loitering.

Clinton has not been charged with anything during the course of the expensive, televised, public hearings and remains president, where his utterances shape the domestic and foreign policy of the country. Gingrich has been reprimanded in televised, public hearings but remains house speaker, where he also can wield considerable power through the very act of speech. Pundits expect him to be a bit less boisterous in the future however.

The Beardshear 8, on the other hand, have been found guilty during closed hearings in which some of them lost the right to hold offices and so cannot bring their voices to bear on any of the significant issues that affect our community.

Many of us are arguing that this, in effect, silences these students. But our argument is being purposely misinterpreted. Our community has been told numerous times over the past few days that the censured students, and those of us who now speak in their defense, have not been silenced, have, in fact, been allowed (thank you) to say even more. The fact that we have expressed our outrage without incurring punishment is somehow “proof” that our charges of restricted speech are unfounded.

The truth is that the university administration can’t stop us from speaking. It has no justifiable grounds. Attempting to do so would take more heavy-handed tactics than the university can reasonably afford to risk in terms of public relations. Its insistence that we are certainly free to speak amounts to damage control.

But that’s not the point. The administration can always choose not to listen. The point is, and this is what Clinton, Gingrich, and some of the Beardshear 8 have in common, the offices these people hold, regardless of the difference in relative importance, give voice to the holder.

To take people out of office, then, certainly amounts to rendering them voiceless in the future. The implications of office, speech and influence cannot possibly be lost on this administration, least of all its most powerful speakers. Their silence, and their insistence on closed hearings, offers proof of that.

Donna Kain

Graduate teaching assistant

Department of English