Associate Dean of Religious Life Paul Raushenbush reminded the Class of 2013 of that “piece of timeless advice” to “love your neighbor as yourself.” The real force of this imperative is completely eliminated, of course, by its relegation to mere advice, keeping the author, his office and the University at arm’s length from asserting any real moral responsibilities.
Greg Burnham ’10 tells freshmen that “as you try to be the next generation of Princeton greats, remember first just to be good.” Unfortunately, however, he offers such a minimalist description of the good life that it seems to include everything except that which just about everyone agrees is bad.
The fact that two different writers decided to welcome the freshman class with a message of morality suggests that there is some level of concern for the ethical character of our generation. And who can blame them, amid regular scandal in business and politics and rising concern about violence and sexual assault on campus? Yet the responses of Burnham and Dean Raushenbush are so bland, so timid, so weak that they cannot possibly address the bad behavior we see everyday on television and in our own lives.
Each article shows us something about the state of moral discourse on Princeton’s campus. Dean Raushenbush’s refusal to acknowledge the moral imperative of the Golden Rule — one of the fundamental cliches of not just Christian, but Western ethics — shows just how far the University has come from its roots as an institution for moral formation. Burnham’s column, on the other hand, in his refusal to define the good life as anything beyond avoidance of the most obvious transgressions, shows just how squeamish we are about asserting substantive moral goods.
Now, the solution to the administrative problem exposed by Dean Raushenbush would be a return to one of the original pillars of the University: moral education. That ship, sadly, sailed a long time ago and doesn’t look to be returning to port anytime soon. Princeton still offers a few solid courses in moral thinking and clings to the “Ethical Thought and Moral Values” requirement, but any substantial recognition of moral Truth in its teaching and policymaking is long gone. Though there is no immediate way to correct the University’s abrogation of its responsibility to moral education, the students under her tutelage can take steps toward restoring critical moral reflection to campus dialogue, the absence of which is exemplified by Burnham’s column.
First, we must ask: Who could blame Burnham for his minimalist definition of the good life? He would not dare mount a substantive assault on immorality; he would not dare ask us to examine our own conduct under the clarifying light of critical reflection. For to make a moral argument on this campus, to marshal humanity’s unique and extraordinary rational resources in favor of a specific and substantive conception of the good life, is to expose oneself to derision and intellectual ostracization — see David Pederson ’12’s well-written and tightly argued Valentine’s Day article against the hookup culture from last semester. In such an environment, we cannot but be rendered impotent and confused by the problem of immorality that prompted these dual columns.
If we are to confront the bad behavior rampant on campus and in the public sphere, we must be comfortable with making moral arguments. The University, of course, will not arm us, so we must arm ourselves. We must wisely select a few courses that will immerse us in moral thinking, and we must engage in critical reflection ourselves, even holding our own behavior up to the light of reasonable debate and discussion. On this campus, it is hopelessly taboo to tell anyone that they are acting wrongly; we must overcome that selfish impulse which only inhibits healthy dialogue and the quest for truth.
Furthermore, when the administration, whether explicitly or implicitly, says that something that you — the Princeton University student — believe (and have good reason to believe) is wrong is A-OK out of some misguided sense of moral pluralism, you have a responsibility to stand up and yell “No!” You have a responsibility to defend moral truth in the face of moral apathy. You have a responsibility to hold the University and your colleagues to account by making your case and in so doing helping us all find the good life.
After all, Burnham is right that it’s tough enough “winding up anything but a scoundrel.” But scoundrels are not born that way, nor are they often steeped in distinctly “bad ideas.” They are merely afflicted with the same moral apathy that pervades this and most other universities, an apathy which is itself a very, very bad idea against which we must continually make battle in order to secure the good life for ourselves and our generation.
Brandon McGinley is a politics major from Pittsburgh, Pa. He can be reached at bmcginle@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.
