The fourth paragraph of the Kalven Report reads, “A good university…will be upsetting.” How true that is. Have you read this newspaper in the last couple of weeks? By way of summary, I present these buzzwords: Kalven Report, Senior Gift Committee, Students for a Socially Responsible Investment Committee, divestment, neutrality, and on and on the list goes. I promise I’m as weary of the back and forth on these specific issues as you are, and so I’m trying to move to more general points as quickly as possible. I believe some things need to be said about the underlying premise of what it is we do here, and I’d like to challenge our understanding of the relationship between elite education and morality.
A couple weeks back, one finely written and well-argued opinion submission to the Maroon, in which the writer favored the University’s “neutrality” in investment decisions, voiced a concern that troubles me deeply. The writer argued that, were the University to release itself from adherence to that neutrality, the discussions over where to invest the U of C’s money could become “ferocious.” His word.
What’s wrong with that? (You may envision another five or six question marks for emphasis.) God forbid our faculty and administrators have to apply themselves to heated, contentious discussions on the merits of expecting a return on an investment in Darfur or West Virginian strip mining. I imagine a scene in which a historian , a mathematician, a biologist, and a philosopher debate not only the University’s moral compass, but also whether to send money in the direction it points. The idea pleases me not because I like dramatics, but because it strikes me as a process worthy of the world’s sharpest minds. Isn’t that, in some way, why we all came here—to be challenged, to have the sort of discussions that are hard, in which maybe there is no right answer, but at least a better one? And yet, when it comes to the University’s money, all of that is tossed aside. Why? Because if Robert Zimmer takes a stand on one side of the issue or another, Botany Pond will turn to blood and a host of locusts will overtake the Reg.
And this is what is so goddamn reprehensible about this whole thing. It stamps a University seal of approval on ignoring the outside world, on looking to it and then deciding to take no action. In turn, we constituents of the University aren’t challenged by the University’s actions, and we don’t have to search ourselves for what we believe is right or wrong. We condone the University’s moral laziness and so cement our own.
Understand that I have no illusions about changing the University’s moral outlook or engagement. If the University of Chicago guiding the world by moral example sounds like a bad joke, that’s because it is. To the casual observer, the University’s most important gifts to the world have been the economics of Milton Friedman and the atomic bomb. I say we can be even greater products of this place. We should be. We are not the University. We are better than it.
To some of you, this will all sound so blatantly obvious as to not merit printing. Thank you, truly, for understanding what is paramount about our education, and apologies for the redundancy. To others, this may seem laughably naïve or un-nuanced, and it is that crowd for which I’m writing. You are my friends and classmates, and what I am trying to convince you of is that the world needs you to care and care deeply. There is no nuance about this.
There is something to be said for neutrality when it’s appropriate (ask the Swiss, maybe). But just as we came here to prepare for achievement in the humanities or sciences, we came here so we might learn to be the best thinkers of our generation. So know this: There is no more important function of an elite education than to train us to decide between right and wrong.
The world recognizes a talent as great when the skill it represents is applied with excellence. If you want to take your particular combination of intelligence and education and use it to be a wealthy banker or renowned lawyer, fine. But what is morally criminal is deciding that your professional excellence excuses you from engaging with the world outside your own, that your own solipsistic reflections and self-interests are most important, and that it is up to someone else to be involved with society at large.
We self-aggrandize as the hardest working and sharpest thinking young adults in the world. So, I’m asking you to put your mind where your mouth is, and direct your attentions outside yourself. If we are so smart, if our education has the worth we say it does, we must rise to the near-impossible challenges of repairing this world and leading through public engagement. This is the moral imperative of an elite education. Live accordingly.
Adam Gillette is a fourth-year in the College majoring in history.
A few things,
The author assumes that because of students’ favoring of neutrality for the institution of the University, students’ must therefore favor neutrality from public engagement for themselves as individuals as well. Though the message aspires to be inspirational, the two subjects, institutional action and individual action get confused, skirting what is actually at stake in regards to the handling of the money which students give as gifts to the institution of the university.
That being said, perhaps rendering this article wholly irrelevant to the contentious debate at hand, there are a few points in the article that struck me as thoroughly disconcerting to hear from a fellow classmate. Where the author asserts that “There is no more important function of an elite education than to ready us to decide between right and wrong.” I would like to respectfully disagree and say that that is the antithesis of what my education here has taught me. It has taught me that often there is no definitive “right” and “wrong” and such quick indictments of either often lead to erroneous or disastrous results. What worries me even more is that the author’s tone seems to suggests that there is an *objective* right and wrong for us to decide between.
Secondly, I do appreciate the author’s assurance that it wouldn’t bother him that I become a wealthy banker or renowned lawyer so long as I do not think that my “solipsistic reflections and self-interests are most important” and excuse myself from engaging with society. How kind. However, I am happy to say that by selecting a career such as banking, law, consulting, and other such “ooo”-inspring response of a career to the perennial question at the bar “so what do you do?”, I will most certainly fulfill not only my own self interests of wealth and/or prominence but also my engagement with society. Regardless of what career we may select, we will not work or live in enclosed systems. So no worries, they are engaging with the world and involving themselves with society at large. The more important question might be in what way exactly are they affecting the society and the larger systems/world in which they are not only a part of but fundamentally impacting.
Lastly, the elitism imbued in this article makes me cringe. The relationship between education and morality is already one that is hugely problematic. But the author makes an even greater distinction by addressing “elite education” and not just simply “education” in relation to morality. The article asserts that the moral process is a “process worthy of the world’s sharpest minds,” the sharpest minds being that of the faculty and administrators at prominent and prestigious schools such as ours. But while the smart grownups are locked in the boardrooms of what were (and what more or less continues to be) our old boys’ clubs directing moral compasses, affecting decisions and policies that do impact so many others and such, what are the plebes to do?
The UC undergraduate’s burden.
If “the author’s tone seems to suggests that there is an *objective* right and wrong for us to decide between” worries you, try a reread:
“in which maybe there is no right answer, but at least a better one?”
Guy’s not arguing that, he’s saying we should at least talk about well, what you seem to care about:
“in what way exactly are they affecting the society and the larger systems/world in which they are not only a part of but fundamentally impacting.”
You’re talking about personal and institutional actions being highly separate but guess what: institutional actions have huge fucking impacts.
It is actually your (the authors) attitude that is precisely the problem here. Do you really believe that your “elite” education is so much better than those who study at other universities, that only you and your fellow students have the burden and obligation to change the world and make a difference because no one else will be able to? Dismount your high horse and enter reality – UChicago is a good university, but so are many, many others around the world. Just because you and other UChicago students think of yourselves as the “hardest working and sharpest thinking young adults in the world” doesn’t make it so. The world is a very large place – UChicago is a fishbowl where your idealistic views may be heralded today, but make no mistake, a diploma from the University of Chicago will not automatically put you on a pedestal or give you a platform to preach from.
Veronica –
I actually think your point strengthens the author’s. All those that benefit from a high quality education have a responsibility to think hard about the social impacts, large and small, of their actions.
Firstly, sick editorial.
Emily, Veronica, I think what he is trying to say is that we, as an elite institution, *especially* have an obligation to think about our social impact. We have considerable resources at our disposal, and as such, we should carefully consider how we would like to deploy them. It is not elitist to recognize that we are at a very privileged position.