Hillary's College Thesis Unsealed

[RBCal]

WELLESLEY, Mass. — The senior thesis of Hillary D. Rodham, Wellesley College class of 1969, has been speculated about, spun, analyzed, debated, criticized and defended. But rarely has it been read, because for the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency it was locked away.

As forbidden fruit, the writings of a 21-year-old college senior, examining the tactics of radical community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, have gained mythic status among her critics — a “Rosetta Stone,” in the words of one, that would allow readers to decode the thinking of the former first lady and 2008 presidential candidate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/

I'm sure they will find a few sentences to take out of context and distort. The few excerpts I've read make her sound like a highly intelligent 21 year old. I'd hate to go back and read what my college papers said 40 years earlier.

[Beachlife!]

I saw the article, but couldn't be bothered to read the excerpts. She was 21, that was a long time ago, I don't see how it has much bearing on her current opinions.

That said, I don't see why it was sealed to begin with.

[geminilee]

Good DOYC, I would hate to be judged on what I might have written at 21, and it was only a decade ago. Does anyone think she still thinks like she did at that age? I know very few people who thought the same at 25 as they did at 21, much less several decades later.

*Barely skimmed the article, cause I really can't see how her paper could have any bearing on anything.

[Ramblin' Dave]

Usually, my reaction to things like this is to imagine the shoe on the other foot. But the thought of trying to make sense of anything George W.M.D. Bush might have written at Yale is just frightening.

The war againt Hillary is pulling out all stops. I am SURE they will find fodder in that thesis to use against her. Here is a perfect example (not from her thesis, but it could be...):

She writes, "Anderson [1920] writes that males should be castratred. However,.....". It will be quoted as, "Hillary wrote this in her thesis,'...males should be castrated...'. Can we afford to have such a radical nut as president? I think not...".

Or even if they don't get her thesis, they can always makes things up....

As I said before, this is going to be a LONG and UGLY runup to the 2008 election....

[Chloe]

Good example, Doug. I think we should have a pool to see how long it takes before this behavior shows up, and where. Bagsy Faux News, by 6 p.m. (if they can read that fast).

Originally Posted by Chloe

Good example, Doug. I think we should have a pool to see how long it takes before this behavior shows up, and where. Bagsy Faux News, by 6 p.m. (if they can read that fast).

The example was already out there. Remember that "quote" of Pope Benedict? He made a statement about Islam being a source of "evil", but what he was actually doing was quoting an older thesis. People seemed to miss "the rest of the story" when he wrote (something like), "But that view is not correct...".

1. I predict that someone will "find" a statement in her thesis about forcing people to comply with community rules. It will be something about taking babies away from parents and raising them in a commune-like setting (the uber "it takes a village" approach). This will be a quote of some other person that will be followed by a, "However, we can't do such a thing because it would be wrong...", but that part of the statement will be left out.

2. I also predict they will find at least one major typing error that, if correct, will totally reverse the meaning of a statement (I am STILL finding errors in my dissertation, some quite funny). Something like, "Men are essential...", gets goofed to, "Men aren't essential....".

3. I also predict there will be at least one totally flippant statement that she actually wrote that will be used against her. Something she wrote at 2 AM while high on caffeine. It will be a statement she wanted to put in so as to "shock" her advisor, fully assuming he (she?) would tell her to pull it. The advisor didn't read it correctly and left it in. She then forgets about it and it stays there. Something like, "The US is a very F.U.'ed country...".

When these three predictions come true, I expect payment from all of you. Small PayPal donations will be acceptable.

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by Chloe

Good example, Doug. I think we should have a pool to see how long it takes before this behavior shows up, and where. Bagsy Faux News, by 6 p.m. (if they can read that fast).

Nah, it'll first show up on some obscure website. Faux will then use that one cite to weasel in a discussion of the slurs, using "there are reports" or "some are saying"-type language. I'm guessing that it will start on tomorrow's morning show, and will really pick up steam on Monday when the three stooges (the 'Fox and Friends' crew) are back on the set. It'll be teased throughout the day, then it will carry over onto the O'Reilly/Hannity block in the evening.

As for the obscure website? Dunno, but it will have some think-tanky non-partisan sounding name like "united citizens public research democracy opinion council" and will turn out to be heavily funded by right-wingers.

ETA: Drudge will link to the obscure site before it shows up on Fox.

Gah, "Skull and Bones" annoys me. What's the skull made of, then?

[Arriah]

Chicken?

[Cervus]

Originally Posted by Beachlife!

That said, I don't see why it was sealed to begin with.

I don't either. If you're a public figure, hiding and sealing anything in your past is just going to give more speculation fodder to your opponents.

[matches]

Originally Posted by Beachlife!

I saw the article, but couldn't be bothered to read the excerpts. She was 21, that was a long time ago, I don't see how it has much bearing on her current opinions.

That said, I don't see why it was sealed to begin with.

Exactly how are they defining Sealed anyway?

I mean its not like a court record, that you can legally seal, or a classified document, it's a term paper which means, firstly it is the property of the college not the Clintons.

Now if the Clintons had the only copy still in existance, presumably it was never published, and her professor had dispossed of all of his papers, and the Clinton's themselves chose simply to not release it, that's not the same thing as sealing the paper.

Sort of like various and asundry nude baby pictures of ourselves are not sealed, we simply choose not to make them public.

As to why not to make the paper public, well I would pressume because it was somethign she wrote some what 3 decades ago, it's probably somewat embarassing. But why it is embarassing could be for any reason. It could reveal hard right opinions just as easily as it could containe radical left opinions.

Now if her professor did have a copy and she asked said professor to not publish her work, that's fine, but again its not sealed.

Unless the statement is that while president, Bill Clinton declared his wife's academic record top secret, there is no way this item could actually be sealed from the public.

[Chloe]

matches, reading the link would have saved you all that typing.

[Ramblin' Dave]

They may also flat out "quote" something she never really said, as that Frontline piece on her back in 1994 (I think?) did.

[matches]

Originally Posted by Chloe

matches, reading the link would have saved you all that typing.

Fair enough, but my point was that the term sealed is misused.

The Clinton's didn't seal the thesis, they requested, as you might request your mother not show your baby bath pictures to your prom date, that an item not be provided for public view.

That people obliged them their request is neither legal, nor binding, nor related to parties not involved in the original request and agreement.

So for example, had her professor decided they didn't like this sort of request they could have made the Thesis available. Likewise had a copy been published in a journal, that journal could have made the Thesis public. And had the college received a new president or board, they could have made the Thesis public.

The term sealed implies an action with legal standing, which is being used to imply that the power of the presidency was used to save the first lady from embarassment. In truth it was not the power of the presidency but simply the power of celebrity which cajoled the University into taking this action.

Essentially, the term sealed implies malfesance where none exists. You can say the actions were heavy handed, or a vanity, but they were not a legal attempt to subvert free communication of ideas and histories.

This is similar to the Skull and Bones Society's action of not making their membership records, or history public. It is a private agreement between private individuals to keep youthfull indescretions underwraps. There is nothing from keeping a fellow Skull and Bones from writing a tell all, and there is nothing keeping the university from making public their records. The request has no legal binding authority, and as such the term sealed is a misnomer.

At least that's my opinion.

[Chloe]

A thesis would be bound and filed at the library. Why would a professor have a copy?

[Ramblin' Dave]

Originally Posted by matches

There is nothing from keeping a fellow Skull and Bones from writing a tell all, and there is nothing keeping the university from making public their records.

Yale doesn't have any more access to Skull and Bones' records than you or I do. It's a private, independent organization, not tied directly to the university in any way.
It's easy enough for current students to find out who is a member of Skull and Bones (and the other societies as well). That is something of an open secret on campus. The better kept secret is exactly what they do behind those closed doors - rumors abound, but it seems as likely as anything that they just get together for dinner twice a week.