|
In loco parentis
By Anthony Dick
Cavalier Daily (U. Virginia)
(U-WIRE) CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. - In April 1998,
then-Dean of Students Robert T. Canevari said to hell with student
self-governance at University of Virginia and banned first years
from rushing fraternities in the fall. His actions arrogantly
and unapologetically opposed the expressed wishes of the elected
representatives of the Inter-Fraternity Council, First Year
Council and Student Council. Ever since, students have patiently
petitioned and editorialized for the simple restoration of a
large chunk of their social freedom -- the freedom to associate
outside of class with whom they want, when they want, without
fear of punishment. But at every turn their concerns have met
with the quick and cold dismissals of an unelected administration
that seems both exceedingly uninterested in what students want
and increasingly fixated on dictating what students need. This
continued interference in students' social lives is but one
representative example of the administration unjustly acting
in loco parentis--in the place of parents--instead of letting
students direct their own lives.
With few exceptions, the youngest students
at the University are 18 years old. In the United States and
in Virginia, this classifies them as adults. They are allowed
to buy guns or to enlist in the armed forces. They are allowed
to purchase highly addictive tobacco products or take out thousands
of dollars of independent student loans. They are allowed to
marry or to get abortions without anyone's consent. But in our
aptly misnamed "Community of Trust" they are not allowed
to decide for themselves when to rush a fraternity. The administration
treats these adult men like children--with the classically unimpressive
excuse, of course, that it is for their own good.
On Oct. 23 of last year, current Dean of Students
Penny Rue wrote a column for The Cavalier Daily, "Springing
into rush," in which she explained her reasons for her
office's continued interference in the social lives of students.
Chief among these reasons, she claims that banning fall rush
"gives students the chance to acclimate to college life,
make friends ... and establish themselves academically."
Similarly, she argues that the ban gives fraternities a "better
opportunity" to evaluate prospective members. And she seems
not to be joking. To argue that banning students from voluntary
social associations for an entire semester enhances their "chances"
or "opportunities" to do anything is not only patently
absurd on its face, but also insulting to the autonomy of these
potential fraternity members. Without interference from the
administration, students clearly could decide for themselves
whether to rush in the fall or spring. What Rue's argument truly
shows is that she wants to deny student choice, not enhance
it, because she doesn't think students are responsible enough
to take care of themselves.
Even more telling, however, is Rue's assertion
that under the fall rush ban, students are more likely to join
fraternities "for the right reasons." The right reasons?
Every grown man has his own reasons for pursuing his social
life as he sees fit, and in a liberal society there is no external
authority for judging whether these reasons are right or wrong.
Perhaps Rue wouldn't mind if someone watched her for four months
of the year to make sure that she wasn't associating with her
friends "for the wrong reasons." But most adults would
mind such interference, and most of them at the university do.
In an interview, Aaron Laushway, Assistant
Dean of Students for Fraternity and Sorority Life, cited the
desire to reduce "excessive drinking" as yet another
paternalistic reason for banning fall rush. Again, this is an
area in which administrators have precisely no business poking
their noses. The university simply should set rigorous academic
standards, and these standards should not be impugned for any
reason. If a student drinks himself below a requisite GPA for
an extended period of time, he should be suspended from the
university. As an adult capable of leading his own life, he
will have no one to blame but himself. That is the extent to
which the administration should concern itself with students'
alcohol habits.
The fundamental Jeffersonian assumption that
individuals should be afforded the greatest amount of freedom
consistent with the security of their basic rights should not
go out the window at Jefferson's University. Maximum social
liberty does not hinder higher education but instead enhances
it by developing students' independence along with their intelligence.
By contrast, the University, in loco parentis, fails to respect
the autonomy of the adult students whose freedom it so capriciously
curtails. And, beyond being dismissive of the solid Virginian
tradition of representative student self-governance, the administration's
crass paternalism ultimately becomes dismissive of students
themselves.
|
|
