At the end of his most recent rant ("Consider This," August 15), Zachary Gottlieb '10 concludes that we Dartmouth students are "a bunch of jerks" who have supplied "no evidence to contradict" his belief that our campus is plagued by a "lack of consideration for property, academics and most importantly, people." Gottlieb's argument, which is reminiscent of his previous column's ("Passing the Buck," August 1) criticism of the average Dartmouth student's "numbing apathy", begins with the initial claim that we are all "self-serving, destructive people." This claim is later developed through the use of tragic, firsthand stories of Dartmouth's antisociality: In one, Gottlieb is unable to leave his row during a quiz because his classmates won't pull their legs in; in another, first-comers to a free-pizza event take whole pies, leaving subsequent pizza-hopefuls unsatiated.
While there is truth to Gottlieb's argument -- the theft and vandalism that he denounces, as well as other unmentioned forms of abuse (both physical and emotional), are very real problems, even within our "Dartmouth bubble" -- he is misguided both in targeting the "self-serving" aspects of our student body's alleged personality, and in lumping these aspects together with the "destructive" ones. To be destructive as Gottlieb describes is certainly condemnable; in such cases, I wouldn't hesitate to agree that the perpetrators were "jerks" suffering from a "lack of consideration" for property, etc. To be self-serving, however, is no sin.
For those who think I'm just indulging in some self-glorifying nihilism, I promise I'm (also) actually basing my argument on a cornerstone of our liberal tradition. In his famous defense of liberty, John Stuart Mill writes, "Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." Of course, by this Mill doesn't mean that we should let everyone do as he pleases, regardless of consequence; there are necessary limits that must be placed on the behavior of all, so as to prevent any one's oppression of the rest.
Instead, Mill is warning against the "tyranny of the majority" that results when the popular beliefs and values of society are taken by their bearers to be "true", and are then used to force the dissenting minority into conformity. In light of this majoritarian tyranny, Mill argues, "The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." What happens when two rival pursuits of the good come into conflict, and how direct our influence has to be on others to constitute "impeding," are of course matters of endless debate. The basic point remains, however, that to do whatever one wants to do, to be completely self-serving -- within the limits set by the exercise of the same ability by others -- is the best thing for humankind.
It is in this context, then, that I find Gottlieb's attack on being self-serving particularly oppressive. While it may well be the case that his efforts to pursue his own good were unjustly impeded by his overly focused classmates, or by his super-hungry peers, the moralizing we see in many of his columns extends far beyond the indictment of crimes with victims.
My intention here is not to single out Gottlieb as the villain, but instead to use him as a way of gesturing towards the wider phenomenon -- visible in the student bodies of many top-tier, liberal-arts institutions -- of closed-mindedly patronizing those whose interests and values are not understood.
This tendency of self-validating moralism is especially visible here at Dartmouth, where Republicans, "corporate whores" and frat "bros" are just three examples of groups denounced by a large number of the self-righteous, liberal students. Although I myself identify as liberal, I take issue with the fact that the latter group acts as if it had some powers of self-reflexivity entirely absent from the former three. If their pursuit of what they have deemed to be their own good does not directly affect us, what grounds do we have for declaring their goals to be wrong?
To be destructive is condemnable. Exercising a victimless 'self-servingness,' however, I do not find morally reprehensible. In fact, to do so may even benefit us.
