9
Washington Square News | Opinion
MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2019
PUNDIT IN TRAINING
Impeachment? Yes, Please
By NATHAN MAUE Columnist Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by the Trump administration was released in redacted form on April 18. The report concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone involved with the campaign on federal conspiracy or campaign finance violation charges. On obstruction of justice, the report laid out a spectacular account of the attempts by President Trump to end the investigation. Mueller was unable to reach a conclusion to indict the president because, under Justice Department guidelines, a sitting president cannot be indicted. The report did state, however, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” Now, Democrats are arguing over whether or not to impeach the president. Though it is a difficult and likely losing battle, Democrats may as well try. Most Democrats understand it is highly unlikely that a supermajority of the Senate would vote to remove the president since it would require support from at least 20 Republicans, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be impeachment proceedings. As the party that decries the undermining of institutional norms and disregard for the rule of law, the Democrats would be remiss to pass on impeaching the president. If the Democrats insist on waiting for the American people to decide Trump’s fate in the 2020 election, as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-M.D., suggested, they will have abdicated their duty as much as Mitch McConnell abdicated the “advice and consent” duties of the Senate on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Some Democrats are providing valid arguments for impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-C.A., is arguing that any impeachment must be bipartisan. Like-minded Democrats seem to be afraid of electoral fallout in the 2020 election, and history might support their argument. After all, the GOP lost seats in the 1998 midterms after impeaching Bill Clinton in a very partisan vote. But the impeachment of Clinton was drastically different than the situation we currently find ourselves in. While Clinton faced impeachment for obstruction of justice in trying to conceal an extramarital affair, Trump has covered up inappropriate contacts with Russians, felony campaign finance violations and
Submitting to
potential crimes surrounding his foundation, his inauguration and his businesses. These two circumstances are clearly not the same and should not be treated that way. I would not be very quick to draw comparisons between the relatively wellliked, moderate politician Bill Clinton and the widely disliked, offensive and extremist ideologue President Trump. Democratic politicians may be hesitant to begin impeachment proceedings, but they certainly aren’t defending the president. Rather, the discussion is about the political consequences of impeachment — but those are unpredictable. An impeachment investigation would plaster Trump’s misdeeds across the media 24/7 while 2020 Democrats are traveling the country talking about healthcare and the economy. We have seen that the drops in Trump’s approval ratings align with blockbuster news coverage of his corruption and inhumane policies. If coverage of the president is only focused on his impeachment, while the Democrats continue to talk about healthcare and economic inequality, it would make for a good split screen. “Trump impeachment proceeding while 2020 Dems vow to expand healthcare” seems like a good headline to me. Most importantly, though, is that impeaching the president is the morally and ethically right thing to do. The integrity of the office of the presidency and the power balance between the branches of government depend on Congress being brave enough to remove a President who doesn’t preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The future of our country’s institutions is in the hands of Congress at this moment. If it refuses to act, young people will be left to deal with corrupt institutions and evil policies long after the current Congress is over. Though they may be unsuccessful, Democrats can signal to the history books and future generations that this type of leadership is not acceptable. If raw politics are placed above the ethical duty to safeguard our institutions from the corruption of a lawless leader, then Democrats stoop down to the level of the GOP and will no longer have a moral high ground to advocate for critical policy. The outcome of the impeachment trial is not more important than showing the country, the history books and the world that even in a tough position, the Democratic Party was able to do what was best for democracy, putting country above party and enforcing the rule of law. In “Pundit in Training,” Nathan takes a look at the fact that while young people are most likely going to constitute the largest voting block in the United States, we seem to lack a proper grasp of their perspectives and opinions. With this column, Nathan aims to weild his many opinions to try and understand the world of American politics through a student lense. Email Nathan Maue at opinion@nyunews.com.
STAFF EDITORIAL
Allowing for Ronell’s Return Creates Culture of Contradiction This past week, WSN reported on a professor returning to teach at NYU this coming fall after she was accused of sexual harassment by former graduate student Nimrod Reitman. Avital Ronell, a Professor of German and Comparative Literature in the College of Arts and Science, was suspended during the 2018-2019 school year after an 11-month Title IX Investigation found evidence that she initiated inappropriate verbal contact with Reitman. In his subsequent lawsuit against NYU and Ronell, Reitman also accused her of non-consensual physical contact. NYU has yet to comment — beyond its no-comment comment that the university does not discuss individual personnel matters — on placing Ronell back on their staff. But as representatives of an institution that prides itself on progressive values, the NYU administration and faculty should be blatantly aware of the irony in not only reinstating, but also defending someone who would inevitably create an unsafe environment for students. Knowingly placing anyone found guilty of misconduct within an institution sends a message of complacency regarding the greater issue of sexual harassment on college campuses. After the investigation ended, prominent feminist scholars came to the defense of Ronell, writing a letter of support that goes directly against how we should respond to sexual assault allegations — by discrediting the victim and citing the abuser’s credentials as reason for her innocence. The most blatant defense of Ronell manifested last summer following the publicization of Reitman’s case, when more than 50 NYU scholars signed a letter arguing that terminating Ronell would be an “injustice.” Renowned feminist scholar Judith Butler — also a signatory of the letter — has since apologized for potentially implying that the accolades of Ronell’s career should warrant her protection from termination. The university issued a statement to the New York Times last year that recognized Ronell’s harassment of Reitman and reiterated its choice to suspend her for a year. But believing that a year would be enough time to allow the situation to pass by, and be forgotten by the student population, would be a drastic underestimation.
Unfortunately, this is not the f irst time NYU has had an insuff icient response to sexual harassment. Earlier this semester, allegations surfaced against Michael Steinhardt — an NYU trustee and the namesake of the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development. In response, the Board of Trustees opened an investigation, yet no time frame or concrete steps have been specif ied. Similarly, the university was criticized in November for hosting a performance piece by Jan Fabre, who has been accused of multiple allegations of sexual harassment. Despite those incidents, NYU has previously taken stances to protect victims of sexual harassment. In February, NYU’s Senior Vice President of University Relations and Public Affairs Lynne Brown argued for NYU’s opposition to Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX changes, which would mandate procedures for cross-examinations that NYU thought would be potentially harmful to victims. The university’s hard stance was embraced as a way to avoid a system that could create damaging experiences for victims caught within the Title IX process. To take such an extensive, clear stance on this issue, only to later allow and keep relatively silent regarding Ronell’s return is hypocritical. As we have stated before, NYU’s policy toward sexual misconduct specif ically outlines that NYU seeks to maintain a “safe learning, living, and working environment” and to “foster a community in which such conduct is not tolerated.” If NYU is, in fact, dedicated to creating an atmosphere that not only allows students to feel comfortable, but also stands against those who threaten such an atmosphere, then how can it allow Ronell to resume her career here? We could call for the administration to make an overt statement against Ronell’s return, but there is no foreseeable scenario in which Ronell would receive public condemnation from the university but continue to teach. It is not enough for the university to apologize or make a statement and suspend her. Failing to terminate Ronell’s position as a professor is an act of direct contradiction against the safe environment NYU claims to cultivate.
Email the Editorial Board at editboard@nyunews.com. HANNA KHOSRAVI Chair MELANIE PINEDA Chair COLE STALLONE Co-chair SARAH JOHN Co-chair
SEND MAIL TO: 75 THIRD AVE. #SB07, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10003 OR EMAIL: OPINION@NYUNEWS.COM WSN welcomes letters to the editor, opinion pieces and articles relevant to the NYU community, or in response to articles. Letters should be less than 450 words. All submissions must be typed or emailed and must include the author’s name, address and phone number. Members of the NYU community must include a year and school or job title. WSN does not print unsigned letters or editorials. WSN reserves the right to reject any submission and edit accepted submissions in any and all ways. With the exception of the staff editorial, opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.