In Defense of College

Dear Declaration,

A frustrated twosome expressed their feelings to Wahoos one and all last week by way of an anonymous letter sent to Dean of Students Robert T. Canevari. The authors, apparently the father and mother of a first-year student, loosed a torrent of anger against their child's institution choice, after just four weeks (Holy shit!), calling our hallowed/sacred/ treasured Honor System "mere rhetoric" upon discovering that the little one had attended parties with "no shortage of beer" a scant few hours after initially arriving on August 30. An allergic reaction such as this demands the utmost attention from those students who cherish the idea of charting unknown waters (i.e. college).

The parents' behavior most likely arises from larger symptoms. Either these two firebrands possess: 1) a profound naïveté with regards to the world surrounding them or 2) a grotesque moral superiority. The heart hopes passionately for the former, yet the brain -- my brain anyway -- lights up in Vegas neon in favor of the latter. A reasoned dissection of both arguments would certainly prove beneficial.

The genuinely naïve usually earn our sympathy before our anger, which makes poking fun at their conduct seem vaguely cruel. As these two folks admitted, they felt a surge of pride after viewing the university's official video detailing the Honor System and its contents: "I have read your Honor Code and have watched the video ... I was quite impressed ... Unfortunately, my first experience is not representative of what is really happening at the University of Virginia." Well, now, to whose experience do they refer? Theirs? Or their child's? Perhaps the kid thinks differently of what goes on. The stodginess evoked by these elders represents a fundamental misreading of what college entails. New, different, often enjoyable yet frequently challenging, a place like U.Va. has never advertised for the faint of heart, academic or social, nor does it treat them particularly well. Some parents evidently view the university (any university) as an extension of themselves, in charge of setting curfews and the like. Their sincere gullibility mocks freedom of both thought and action, though in a manner far less harmful and parasitic than oral superiority.

The "mystique" of the university, along with its resultant promotion, shares much of the blame in spreading this myth of an age of innocence. The Lawn, "Mr. Jefferson," and the Honor System all feed the preposterous notion that U.Va. students (and their parents) enjoy a sublimely elevated status. Perhaps the parents in question cling to an imaginary, idealized world (read America), one in which purity of soul and motive goes unquestioned. Such people believed everything Richard Nixon ever said and react with indignation if you call JFK a ruthless lecher. And, oh yes, they grow horrified at the prospect of college students going out and drinking beer.

Which brings us to personality number two, a far less complicated scenario with which to tangle. Though true believers in some select institutions, they shrewdly acknowledge evil's existence -- for the sole purpose of blaming someone else for it, a task at which they excel (liberals choose "society," while conservatives opt for "culture"). Predictably, in the university arena, they pursue fraternities with particular vigor. The authors bitched incessantly about the "hands-off" period or whatever, saying first years attending fraternity parties during the "no-contact" time frame violates the Honor System. I know little of what transpires each weekend (or weekday) on Rugby Road; I care even less. But to lay responsibility at their door smacks of self-congratulation, as in "my child would never go there -- but now that he has, the fault lies not with him, but with them." Yet fraternities, social by nature, must do things like fraternize, lest they sink into irrelevance. If that means letting in first years to get drunk and listen to loud music, well then, Claus Von Bülow had it right -- let the chips fall where they may. Commerce students could save two years and countless hours (resumé writing excluded) by instead observing the behavior exhibited, however primitively, each weekend -- that of a business marketing and catering to a specific clientele.

The moral certitude with which the few piously denounce the many allows the accusers sufficient latitude in which to bask in the glory of their resistance to temptation. Conveniently, this masks their own succumbing to man's most vile tendency, the inherent need to express and feel superiority over others, a fault they desperately try to hide with little success. No wonder they possess such short fuses. Again: Four weeks? Holy shit!

Sincerely,
Thomas Till

Signatures submissions may be edited for length and/or clarity. They are actual submissions from Dec readers. Promise!