If you’ve had the fortune to take 20th-century Japanese history with professor Sheldon Garon, however, the word “paternalism” takes another shade of meaning. At its best, paternalism involves an exchange of liberties for protections with an intended social benefit. Think of a stereotypical father: As long as you live under his roof, you live by his rules. You sacrifice some of your freedom, but you get to live rent-free under the caring protection of your parents. For better or for worse, paternalism explains why the Japanese are relatively reluctant to lay off employees and why employees there generally rest assured that they’ll have lifelong employment.
So paternalism can be interpreted in multiple ways, but the interpretation largely depends on how it’s implemented. At its worst, as either professor would agree, paternalism resembles little more than patronizing. It can even be dangerous, as when it gives too little in exchange for too much and the social benefit is useless or unwanted.
As Princeton students, we encounter paternalism every day. Like good little liberty-loving Americans, we tend to hate it. Some of the most upsetting patronizing moves the University has undertaken during my time here were the elimination of late breakfast and double late meal and the transfer of the textbook business from the U-Store to Labyrinth Books. The University offered paternalistic reasons for the change each time: creating a sense of unity in the residential colleges and providing the University with a better bookstore. But these “social benefits” were largely unwanted and are generally considered to be of lesser value than the losses incurred. I’m not convinced that changing late meal had any tangible effect on residential college unity, and, as I’ve argued before, Labyrinth has been a disappointment.
What students often overlook, however, is that if the University’s paternalism were to disappear altogether, we would be up in arms as our comforts evaporated. Even many of the unfavorable changes that have been decried as vilely paternalistic caused outrage merely because they were deviations from earlier paternalistic protections that students preferred. The U-Store was an excellent example of benevolent paternalism, through which the University provided students with a sheltered service. The existence of late meal is also an example of benevolent paternalism: The University could just as easily decide that the dining halls are open during certain hours, and if student’s can’t make it, that’s what Nassau Street is for. One can argue that all of these benefits are covered by tuition, but tuition isn’t radically lower elsewhere — and most places do not have such generous financial aid — and many other schools are far less charitable to their students.
For our part, students need to acknowledge the University’s vast generosity. We need to notice that the University’s paternalism touches every aspect of our undergraduate lives and that on the whole, the benefits outweigh the detriments. This does not mean that we should grant the University a carte blanche: It would inevitably stumble, and we owe it to ourselves and future Princetonians to try to point out Nassau Hall’s mistakes. Criticism must be offered, but it should be both constructive and understanding.
Students often clamor for greater student input and, on that count, the University’s recent housing survey was admirable. But it is also imperative that the University be more transparent in its dialogue with us. Students can understand that the privileges we enjoy come with a cost — and that the costs we pay come with benefits — but we’re not psychic. A lot of students were upset that Princeton didn’t follow Harvard’s lead last year in increasing aid packages. Having worked for Tiger Call for four years, I intuited that using more money from the endowment was a bad call, and the economy has vindicated Princeton’s position, but I could only understand because it’s been my job to explain these things to alumni for years. To sympathize with unappealing University policies, it’s necessary to understand the reasons behind them, and that can only be done if those reasons are explained honestly and without patronizing doublespeak.
On all sides, we have to understand the relationship between the student body and the administration and acknowledge the bond between us for what it is. For paternalism to work, it requires love and respect in equal quantities, and both these sentiments must be mutual.
Martha Vega-Gonzalez is a history major from New York. She can be reached at mvega@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
