Over the past week, I've followed this paper's coverage of two major issues: the decision by the new Duke President, Nan Keohane, that East Campus should be a freshman campus; and the sense of a "lack of intellectual life" at Duke. Both controversial topics are the logical outcome of a trend towards more control and less freedom on campus.
Keohane feels that East Campus should be a "core of freshman experience, a highly concentrated place designed for the freshman." At first, that may seem a noble goal. It might help orient the new undergrads, and enhance self-confidence and a sense of belonging.
Interestingly, though, there may be another, more subtle but more profound objective: that of changing the university's intellectualism.
As professor Edward Shaugnessy stated, a freshman campus might "change the culture . . . If we can capture the freshman class and create an intellectual community on East, we can change the rest . . . "
That statement brings to mind either a ridiculous image of professors roping students and wrestling them to the ground, or something much more ominous. But undergraduate reaction so far appears limited to cries of "Don't change my situation!" Instead, the reaction of students, faculty, alums and all in the Duke community ought to be, "Is Duke admitting failure?"
Only a system that lacks--or actually discourages--intellectual community is in need of dramatic overhauling to create such.
Further, students generally do not enter Duke as non-intellectual idiots; incoming freshmen must have demonstrated ability to be admitted. So what happens? Because apparently, sometime between admission and sophomore year, those students are stripped of their intellectualism.
As professor Dr. Onye Akwari stated bluntly, "If you really, really want an intellectual environment in which to thrive, you don't come to Duke."
If true, is this lack of intellect, supposedly rampant on campus, the result of bright students choosing to come to a "party school"? Or, once here, of having lost the love of learning?
In either case, Duke is failing its most critical test.
In fact, President Keohane and others in the administration appear to recognize this failure, and, without admitting it, they are seizing the initiative and preparing to give Duke a shot of intellectualism. It seems reasonable, politically wise and likely to be effective. But significant problems lurk in such a solution.
It could be that society's anti-intellectual attitude (and celebration of purely material "success") is at the root of campus anti-intellectualism. Or it may be that the university's mission of education is not viewed as a part of life, as a goal, but only as a means to an end: a slot in grad or professional school, or in business. Perhaps the Duke faculty simply fails to engage students.
Students might actually be intellectual, but their own idea or level of such fails to live up to an unrealistic, "Oxford in the '20s" idealization of a university experience. Or maybe Duke really is just another party school.
In any case, the concept that any administration, no matter how well-intentioned, can "capture" the attitudes and thoughts of first one group, and then all, is deeply disturbing. That's the kind of dictatorial thinking that can quickly lead to forcing individuals to believe and say things that the majority (or those in power) wish all to embrace. It's either laughably simplistic, or deeply repulsive.
This isn't about high academic standards: it's about controlling the tenor of human interaction on campus.
What's next? Dress codes? Speech codes?
College students are not children. They are adults, here for an education. Some may be immature, or overly affected by peer pressure, social groups or advertising. A few might benefit from working a month on an assembly line. But they are not children; in general, they are open to new ideas, capable of responsibility and do not require constant supervision.
"In loco parentis" be damned: Is Duke a university for young adults, or a holding pen for large children? Parents pay the bills, so perhaps the University really is very expensive day care (if so, that explains the lack of intellectual life).
At least, it is until the students show real responsibility. As in, say, being voting citizens, refusing to be condescended to, or realizing that true intellectualism grows from within, and cannot be imposed.
I still may be young enough and naive enough myself to believe in the power of individuals to make their own decisions. Frankly, I see no real alternative--unless you're willing to accept unquestioning conformity as a way of life.
I'm not.
You?
Edward Benson is a Medical Center employee.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.