COLUMN: "Legal Studies 101"

From Sumeet Goel's "I'm From Joisey! You From Joisey?", Spring '92 Yeah, she testified before a congressional committee. Yeah, she accused a potential member of our highest court of sexual harassment. In any case, did this Oklahoma University Law School professor suddenly attain jurisprudence nirvana, making her the ultimate authority on the laws of sexual harassment? The answer is obviously no. No, she doesn't know the laws better than any of our law professors. No, she didn't bring unique insight to her speech (because she never even mentioned the case itself). No, she didn't go that far beyond the five paragraph summary of the definition of sexual harassment as outlined on page A8 of Monday's Daily Pennsylvanian. Yet, no one can fault her for what she did. It's the American Way: find a sucker and then milk him for every penny he's got. She spoke to this community for an hour about her area of expertise -- law -- plain and simple. If someone offered you $11,000 to speak for an hour on the various merits of different beers, could you do it? Sure. Would you do it? Without a doubt. No, the fault lies with the University. It wasn't as if those involved didn't know how Anita Hill was going to address sexual harassment. The moment she was contacted, she told the University that she would not discuss the hearings and that she "didn't want to hear the name Clarence Thomas." Like any sane individual, she steered away from the area that would make her uncomfortable and instead stayed on the topic that she knew she could do no wrong with: law. Leaders of Connaissance told me that the true purpose behind bringing Anita Hill to Penn was to bring a timely issue onto campus for discussion and to reach as many people as possible. The controversial hearings -- not the person Anita Hill -- may have brought sexual harassment to the forefront of many a coffee table discussion, but does that mean we need to bring Hill to Penn at such considerable cost? I think not. She spoke to about 2,000 people, many of whom were not part of the Penn community. What would be the difference if, during this past week, our law professors discussed the problem in class, and were also asked to hold other presentations and/or speeches addressing sexual harassment? You don't think that could have reached 2,000 people in just the same way? C'mon, get serious -- these discussions probably would have been more pertinent, too. Hell, a series of smaller discussions held around campus would have been more effective than being told about sexual harassment law for an hour. Connaissance and the Women's Studies department can call this a success, but they know better. Face it, 2,000 people did not go to see Anita Hill because they wanted to improve their understanding of sexual harassment law. They went because of pubic hair in a Coke. They went because of Long Dong Silver. They went because of Arlen Specter, Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch and company. They went because of Clarence Thomas and a media blitz unlike any other. And they were disappointed. The only ones who came away with any sort of positive reaction were experiencing what is commonly referred to as "cognitive dissonance" -- I spent $20,000 last year to learn to use that term instead of "sour grapes." Anita Hill? She came away from the speech experiencing what is commonly referred to as "pull the wool over their eyes." Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking Anita Hill's intelligence. She's a brilliant woman. $11,000 per speech. Book about the hearings in the works. CBS probably planning a mini-series for next fall. If she works it right, this snowballs into a hell of a lot of money. They said that she faked it for the publicity. They said that no woman would have put herself through that hell just for the money. Regardless of what really happened, she's reaping profits now because of a country's obsession with sensationalism. Don't you feel proud to be a small part in all of it? · JUST WONDERING: Don't worry, no lyrical problems, just a question: Have you ever tried a bourbon, scotch and beer in succession? No wonder George Thorogood sounds like that. That combo would kill anyone's voice. Sumeet Goel is a sophomore Communications and Finance major from Parsippany, New Jersey. "I'm From Joisey! You From Joisey?" appears alternate Thursdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.