I still remember “the rule” from my college days at Brandeis University. It was known as Rule 22, and went as follows.
“Rule 22:
This rule is known to all as “Rule 22” from its place in a former list of University regulations.
It means that Brandeis students should never display themselves in an unfavorable light either on or off campus, by excessive drinking, public display of affection, brawling, improper language, etc. In short, be discreet!
All students are expected to conduct themselves at all times, both on and off campus, in an orderly manner. Disorderly and improper conduct may lead to expulsion or other penalties.”
From brandeis student handbook 1962-1963, pg. 103.
Yes, even in 1962 we students complained about Rule 22. Remember, back then we were reading George Orwell’s 1984 and Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon. Rule 22 seemingly gave those hated administrators unregulated power to punish us. And for what? Well, it wasn’t very clear. Public displays of affection? Oh my Lord! Any “indiscretion?” Ridiculous!
But at the end of the day, we all knew that “the rule” as applied meant BE DISCREET. In actuality, it didn’t mean we couldn’t indulge. It meant we should do so in private. I’m not aware that the University ever enforced Rule 22 against private behavior that was not unlawful. Nor, by the way, am I aware that anyone was ever sanctioned under Rule 22 for public displays of affection, in the form of hand holding, kissing and the like (remember, this was the late 1950’s into the early 1960’s)!
The reason I called for Congressman Anthony Weiner to resign shortly after he admitted his “indiscretions” is because he has so dramatically and profoundly violated Rule 22. It appears, as Weiner has stated, that he never met the women who were the objects of his tweets, messages, emails and photos, and never engaged in sex, as that term is typically understood, with any of them. In that sense, his so-called by some “sexless sex scandal” is different and perhaps less abhorrent than others’ sex scandals, including those of Bill Clinton, and various ministers, Senators and Representatives. To be sure, in some cases these others have resigned, although obviously not all have done so.
Had word leaked out that Weiner had indulged in the activities that have been reported but without the subsequent release of revealing photos, tweets or emails, that might have been a different story, perhaps not in moral terms but in its impact and the political fallout. At least it likely would have made some difference to me.
I opposed Clinton’s impeachment (let alone conviction). But, had there been Blackberry photos of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky doing what they were apparently doing (recall, according to them it wasn’t quite sex!), I suspect Clinton would have resigned or been convicted in the impeachment trial. And I would likely have approved of his removal. The release of photos would not have changed Clinton’s conduct but, at least for me, the impact would have undermined my ability to view and respect him as my President.
Am I preaching a double standard -- almost anything goes in private but if it is done in public then consequences flow? No. Obviously criminal or other extreme misconduct, whether conducted in public or in private, is wrong and public figures who transgress should pay the consequences. But what I am saying is that, when it comes to salacious but not unlawful behavior indulged in by public figures, I believe Rule 22 should apply.
