Diana’s last interview was given, significantlyrnenough, on June 13 to a womanrnjournalist, Anick Cojean, who worksrnfor Le Monde, one of the few newspapersrnin the world that has steadfastly refusedrnto publish photographs (though it doesrnemploy cartoonists) and which hasrnsought to maintain the undisputedrnsupremacy of the printed word. In thisrninterview Diana complained bitterly ofrnthe pursued and hunted life she was nowforcedrnto lead by a swarm of journalisticrnstalkers who had become so omnipresentrnand expert at high-speed espionage thatrnextraordinary ruses and decoys—withrnseveral chauffeur-driven cars driving offrnin different directions —now had to bernemployed in an attempt to “throw themrnoff the scent.”rnDuring her last afternoon in Paris,rnDiana left the Ritz Hotel where she hadrnbeen staying with her lover, wishing torndo some discreet shopping in variousrnfashionable stores near the Champs-rnElysees. The swarm of inquisitive photographersrnand journalists who doggedrnher every step finally became so obnoxiousrnthat she was forced to return, dismayedrnand frustrated, to her future father-rnin-law’s hotel, where she must havernfelt like a trapped animal.rnThe supreme irony of her fate is that,rnin the final analysis, it was not altogetherrnaccidental. Had she had the foresight ofrna Winston Churchill or an Eisenhower,rnwho during World War II had “doubles”rndriven around in cars in order to deceivernNazi killer-squads, Princess Diana mightrnhave saved her life by finding a suitablerndouble to deceive her pursuers. But inrnpeacetime, such extreme measures arerninconceivable.rnAnd so she died, victim of the veryrnforces she had so thoughtlessly encouraged.rnFor, unlike Mother Teresa of Calcutta,rnwho detested having a photographrntaken of her, Diana had no objection tornbeing filmed while accomplishing wellpublicizedrnacts of charity—in favor ofrnthe downtrodden and oppressed, ofrnAfrican lepers, of victims of AIDS, ofrnfootless cripples mutilated by mines laidrnin Bosnia, etc. She who had not hesitatedrnto give an unprecedented televisionrninterview in order to make her personalrnsufferings as a wife and mother known tornthe entire world thus became a consummaternactress.rnReligions, even in an age of mass idolatryrnlike ours, tend to be morally demanding,rnas an editorialist in the Gazetternde Lausanne aptly pointed out. Diana,rnhowever, made no such demands on herrndevotees. This was the secret of her extraordinary-rnsuccess. She became Diana,rnGoddess of the Spectacle, not to say thernGoddess of Illusion—and the intellectualrnemptiness of her personality was preciselyrnwhat made it so easy for her “fans”rnto project their own fantasies upon her.rnThere are roles one assumes in lifernwhich then become part of one’s character,rnand this seems to have been the casernwith Princess Diana. To avenge herselfrnfor the humiliations she had suffered atrnthe hands of the British Royal Family,rnshe chose to play the part of a modernrnmater dolorosa, expressing her maternalrngrief over the “loss” of two sons she hadrnnot been allowed to “educate” accordingrnto her personal wishes and in a trulyrn”modern” style. Like so many of herrncontemporaries, who lived and live simultaneouslyrnin two worlds—the worldrnof harsh, ever)day realit)’ and the dreamrnworld of television “irreality”—she wantedrnto have her cake and eat it too, gailyrnkicking up her heels in nightclubs whilernremaining Her Royal Highness, thernPrincess of Wales. It was a dangerousrngame, but the public loved it because itrnwas so unconventional, so unstuffy, sorn”exciting.” But in so doing she arousedrnthe gargantuan appetite of the scandalmongersrnand tabloid gossipers who pursuedrnher like Furies to the ends of thernearth. And so she died, as she had livedrnfor the last few months of her existence,rnpursued and finally mauled by the monsterrnshe had too frequently caressed.rnCurtis Gate, who lives in Paris, is thernauthor, most recently, of Andre Malraux;rnA Biography, reviewed in our OctoberrnLetter FromrnInner Israelrnhy Jacob NeusnerrnThe Yale ExperiencernLeave it to Yale to hoist itself by its ownrnsnoot—the snootiest college in the countryrnhas finally given itself its own comeuppance.rnYale has declared promiscuit)’,rnor at least exposure to aggressively promotedrnpublic promiscuity, to form an integralrnpart of “the Yale experience.”rnThey’ve told some nice Orthodox Jewishrnboys that, if they object to urinating andrndefecating in the presence of girls, theyrnshould go to some other school, sincernthey would be required at Yale to residernin dorms where toilets are not “genderspecific,”rnas they say in political-correctnessese.rnThe students asked to live off-campus,rnrather than in the Yale-sponsored whorehousesrncalled dormitories. Raised in OrthodoxrnJudaism, which—like Islam andrnevangelical. Orthodox, and CatholicrnChristianity—teaches sexual restraintrnand modesty between the sexes, the studentsrntried to escape the de rigueur en’ironmentrnof forced receipt of condoms,rnnormative alcoholism, and requiredrnsharing of bathrooms by both sexes. ThernTorah says Abraham saved Lot fromrnSodom; they followed suit. In reply, Yalerntold them they had come to the wrongrnplace, and that they should leave Yale ifrnthey did not want to share “the Yale Experience.”rnSure, Yale officials want to accommodaternstudents’ “religious needs.” But accordingrnto the New York Times, they alsornsay that “students who come to Yalernknow in advance that it is ‘a defining requirement’rnof a Yale education that lowerclass-rnmen live on campus.” The dean,rnRichard Brodhead, adds, “Part of Yale’srnunique offering is the chance for studentsrnto learn about other outlooks by livingrnin the unique community. If you allowrnall groups based on affiliation orrnconviction to separate themselves fromrnthe whole university community, yournopen the door to all kinds of self-segregationrnthat this place has worked ver}’ hardrnagainst.” Self-segregation apparently encompassesrnseparate men’s rooms andrnladies’ rooms.rnYale’s flack, Thomas Conroy, says itrneven better: “We understand that aspectrnof the Yale educational experience is notrngoing to be attractive to ever)’one, and wernunderstand it means some prospectivernstudents will choose to go to school elsewhere.”rnThat is to say, if you want tornmake wee-wee by yourself, don’t come tornYale. Wow!rnLeave it to Yale to speak of what it sellsrnas “an experience” —not as an education.rnNotice the issue: it is not a requiredrncourse that the students object to taking,rnor a required area of learning—let alonerna required body of knowledge. It isrnsomething that sounds amorphous butrn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn