LETTER: What's Relevant

If Jennifer Kornreich (DP 2/25/92) discoverd that one of her professors had a reputation for missing deadlines, I find it hard to believe that this would not affect her decision to rely on the professor for a graduate school recommendation. Although procrastinating is not illegal, it is a reflection on the professor's character which may have an effect on his or her relationship with students. The same can be said for Bill Clinton and the Gennifer Flowers affair. Kornreich goes on to state that the use of personal ethics to evaluate a candidate is less important than his or her "adherence to public standards" -- but aren't they closely related? If I was a chronic liar but preached honesty, would Kornreich vote for me based solely on my public actions? I would hope not. In my opinion, we need to establish a balance between evaluation of a candidate's public and private lives, not dismiss the latter entirely. The fact that Clinton committed adultery does have a bearing on his ability to serve as President. I think loyalty and honesty are traits that any successful marriage or job demand. Kornreich goes on to call Clarence Thomas a pig because of the accusations against him, illustrating that she, too, evaluates public figures according to their private lives. If how Thomas and Clinton interact with others and perceive business relationships are "irrelevant" to the evaluation process, then what is "relevant"? If only credentials were required for evaluating someone, then prospective employers would only ask for resumes, not for a personal interview. Applying for the presidency of the United States is undeniably the most rigorous and thorough "interview" one can imagine, but we -- as the "employer" would be victims of superficial selection. VIRGINIA MATTINGLY College '92