As Senators voted to acquit President Bill Clinton on both counts of impeachment Friday afternoon, students sat in the Rathskeller intently focused on television screens-watching NASCAR.
The televisions in both Alpine Bagels and the main hallway of the Bryan Center were turned off, but two students watched the vote in a TV lounge.
One of those students, Trinity junior Sarah Carter, couldn't really explain her interest in the proceedings.
"Really, I think it's more curiosity than anything else," she said, immediately after the Senate voted 55-45 to acquit Clinton on perjury charges and 50-50 to acquit on obstruction of justice. "There's nothing surprising about it."
For the rest of the campus, attitudes ranged from indifference to opposition.
"We're not public policy or political science majors," said Trinity freshman Sree Kintala, explaining why she and her friends had been following the Senate trial "not at all."
Other students thought the trial was a waste of time.
"I thought it was all nonsense," said Trinity junior Stefan France. "I've been following everything else, but not the whole trial. I knew he would be acquitted before the trial started."
As for the actual verdict, student opinion differed widely.
Some thought the president should have been punished for his actions.
"I feel like he should have been removed from office because it would have set a precedent for future presidents to realize that they cannot break the trust of the American people," said Trinity sophomore Clifton Cameron.
Others thought that Congress stopped at the right point.
"It was right for them to impeach but not to remove," said engineering freshman Chris Duck. "He was guilty of perjury, but I think it's good he's still in office. He's doing a fine job as president."
Political science professor David Paletz teaches the introductory course on American political systems. In September, before the Starr Report was released, he correctly predicted to his class that Clinton would be impeached by the House of Representatives but not removed by the Senate.
Looking back on the events surrounding the impeachment of Clinton, Paletz feared they could be harmful to American politics.
"In some ways, it's a response to Watergate," he said. "It's quid pro quo, tit for tat, revenge-and that's not good in politics. You just hope that the Democrats don't come back in 20 years and go after some Republican president."
Paletz managed to find one "positive" in the Senate trial.
"The criticism of Congress has been that they have the nation's business at hand and they should be doing that," he said. "But you could argue that this has kept them out of trouble. If they weren't doing this, they could have been doing something worse."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.