Ken Starr, Baylor University, and the Real Problem With Hyper-Partisanship

As you may have heard, Baylor University recently named Pepperdine Law School Dean Ken Starr its new university president. Yes, that Ken Starr. The reaction has been mixed in the Baylor community, and certainly there are legitimate feelings of hope and hesitation on both sides. However, the whole ordeal has highlighted something very ugly about American political culture—the real downside of hyper-partisanship. The notion that if any figure, right or left, at any point, has done something deemed to be politically controversial, they can automatically be disqualified from doing anything else significant.

To truly understand the mixed reaction of Baylor, one must understand the infighting that has occurred there for a decade. That is too long a discussion to have now, so here is the one-sentence version: There are those wish Baylor to be a midsized, Baptist, regionally prestigious university, where professors are teachers before researchers; conversely, there are those who wish Baylor to become a highly ranked, research-heavy, national leader in integrating faith and learning—a Texas-Baptist version of Notre Dame. That is oversimplification and both sides are not mutually exclusive, but it works for our purposes at the moment. For the record, I’m more in the latter camp than the former. 

Enter Ken Starr.

Certainly, he is a national figure—but a controversial one, and one who is devoutly Christian but not from a Baptist background. There are those who hail Starr as the type of nationally recognizable figure Baylor has not previously had at the helm, and those who cringe at Starr as only the latest example of Baylor’s foolish departure from its traditions. 

Moving away from the background information, the real issue here is hyper-partisanship. And I don’t mean hyper-partisanship in terms of fighting on Capitol Hill. I actually like when politicians are partisan about politics. True believers on both sides of the aisle should be vociferously defending their principles. Politicians have screamed at each other for centuries and will do so until the end of time. No, the kind of hyper-partisanship that is ugly here is the kind that says we’re going to simply write people off because of partisan or controversial statements or actions. When leftists attempted to make Justice Alito a racist because of his brief membership in a Princeton alumni group skeptical of affirmative action, that was hyper-partisanship at its worst. When conservatives took admittedly weird, but inconsequential comments of Justice Sotomayor, make a mountain of a molehill with them, and attempted to disqualify her from the high court, that is hyper-partisanship at its worst.

This is all important because the criticism against Ken Starr boils down to something like this: He cannot lead a major university because he piloted a right-wing smear campaign against President Clinton. In other words, because Starr was involved in a high profile controversy, he is to be forever outcast as “partisan” and “controversial.” But even if we grant the debatable premise that Starr allow a legal investigation to devolve into a right-wing witchunt… So what? As far as smoking-gun arguments go, this one kind of sucks.

Rather than automatically dismiss Starr as a wing-nut because our culture has the attention span of a gnat and the analytical capacity of a desk lamp, the more appropriate thing to do is to examine Starr in greater depth. In this examination, we must look for patterns and themes—do we see competency and accomplishment or do we see exclusively partisan undertakings and political hackery?

Let’s use three questions to guide us:

1. Is this person objectively qualified?

Objectivity is hard to define these days, so let’s do this through an exercise I call the “blind resume test.” I’m going to give you the highlights of a resume and we’ll see if they are sufficient to qualify someone for president of a university.

Resume X:

- B.A. George Washington Univ, M.A. Brown Univ, J.D. Duke Univ School of Law

- Law Clerk, Judge David W. Dyer 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 

- Law Clerk, Chief Justice Warren Burger

- Private practice, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher

- Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit

- Solicitor General of the United States

- Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

- Independent Prosecutor, Whitewater and other investigations

- Time Magazine Man of the Year, 1998 (shared)

- Visiting Professor, NYU Law, George Mason Univ School of Law

- Dean, Pepperdine Univ School of Law

That, of course, is the resume of one Ken Starr. Suffice to say, any fair-minded person would say that he is highly qualified for the position.

2. What do this person’s peers in their field say about them?

Well here is a good sampling of praise for Ken Starr from many significant figures. But suffice to say, when you get Republican U.S. Presidents, ACLU presidents, law school deans, and CEOs going to bat for you, then you must be doing something right.

Perhaps even more significant for Starr, he garnered praise from the law school at his incoming school from figures who I’m certain do not see eye to eye with him politically.

Baylor Law School Dean Bradley Toben: “Judge Starr brings to Baylor University a wealth of high profile experience in public service and in professional and graduate education. He has guided Pepperdine School of Law to a new and significant level of prominence. He will now use his gifts and talents to do likewise for our university.”

Prominent Criminal Law Professor Mark Osler: “This is a great choice… As a former prosecutor, there were aspects of the Clinton investigation which deeply troubled me. However, I think that Dean Starr has proven himself at Pepperdine Law as someone who will put the institution first, is a strong leader, and who will finally bring stable leadership to Baylor… I have known Ken Starr for several years, been to his home a few times, and we have discussed our work at length. I have found him to be gracious, strikingly intelligent, and humble.”

3. What if we turned the tables?

Ok, another blind resume exercise:

- B.A. Yale Univ, Rhodes Scholar, M.A. Univ of Oxford, J.D. Univ of Oklahoma School of Law

- Representative, Oklahoma State House of Representatives

- Professor, Oklahoma Baptist Univ

- Governor of Oklahoma

- U.S. Senator from Oklahoma

- Board of Directors, Texas Instruments and American Airlines

- Co-chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board

This is the resume of the current Univ of Oklahoma President, David Boren, a Democrat. Boren is a great fit at the Univ of Oklahoma, and why wouldn’t he be? Who wouldn’t want individuals with the resumes of a Starr or Boren or Robert Gates, or potentially a Hillary Clinton to lead their universities?

When we take emotions and politics out of what is essentially a non-political decision, it is much easier to warm up to highly qualified, highly competent choices.

This overly simple, three layer analysis can be applied to judicial and executive appointments or political candidates. It would weed out the Van Joneses of the world but allow for the Miguel Estradas. This is not to say there are not legitimate grounds for being dismissive of people, I wouldn't want to hire Elliott Spitzer or Mark Foley to run my university. But I wouldn't hesitate to welcome a serious, qualified person with whom I disagree politically to take the top job at a university. 

When we, as a culture, approach people and issues being dismissive and short-sighted, we do so at our own peril. 

Ed. note: Kevin Goll is a proud Baylor alumn.