From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '97 From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '97 Necessity is often made to be a virtue, as Chaucer reminds us. The University, on the other hand, sees it fit to make virtue a necessity. Community service is a virtue which should be apparent to all. Those who engage in it benefit from "self-actualisation" and the sweet joy of delivering the milk of human kindness to one's fellow man. Those who are recipients obviously gain from the help of their neighbors. Everybody wins. So, if this is the case, why should certain individuals be compelled, under pain of retribution, to engage in this pious, philanthropic endeavour? Why is this required of Greeks? Of course, such types of policies are not new. All fraternity pledges MUST submit to the indignity of a date-rape workshop. Non-fraternity males are not required to partake of such a service. Obviously, this is due to the fact that frat boys are rapists. (I once tried to explain to my mother why the University insisted on naming me a rapist due to the fact that I belonged to a certain organization. Somehow, I got confused, and the logic got muddled.) It is incredibly entertaining to see beaming, smug University administrators at the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs forcing young people to help the community. Obviously, these young people are far too lazy, or stupid or selfish to do so themselves -- that's why we have to make them. Actually, it makes me physically ill when I realize that the administration thinks so poorly of me. (This opinion is both unjustified and unwarranted. The vast majority of students I know have volunteered their services to the community at one time or another.) Part of the OFSA ideal, which is increasingly prevalent at this institution, is the notion that "I know what's best for you." The syllogism works as follows: 1: Community service is good for you. 2: I know this. 3: You are either too stupid or too lazy to know this. 4: Ergo, I will make you do it (to help you, not to help me). This is nonsense. It is also a dangerous type of argument that has precipitated virtually every evil that has occurred in this century. The last time I checked, the United States was still a constitutional, liberal democracy. "Democracy" means a large proportion of the populace is allowed to make decisions for everyone. "Liberal," in its old sense, means there are certain things that a majority, no matter how large, cannot impose on a minority. For example, in a true liberal democracy, a 99-percent Christian majority would not be able to legislate against a one-percent homosexual minority. This classical liberalism ensures a basic diversity which has, over the ages, protected small groups such as Jews, Darwinians and (in America at least) the Amish. "Constitutional" means all of this is written down somewhere, and is at least sometimes taken seriously. A University is meant to reflect this ideal. Universities, theoretically, allow a diversity of opinion, an exchange of ideas. I am dismayed that Penn has chosen not to follow this route, and has instead decided to treat its students as infantile imbeciles, bereft of reason and moral fibre. By forcing a portion of its students to undertake certain activities, Penn has implicitly recognized these students cannot think for themselves, nor should they be allowed to. When we have graduated, and we are trying to get by in society, I am sure that occasionally we will be asked where we were educated. I, for one, shall be ashamed to admit that I was indoctrinated at Penn. When this institution asks me for a donation, I am certain that I will refuse (as, by all accounts, will many of my classmates). When potential applicants ask me whether or not to go to Penn, I will strongly discourage them from doing so. Needless to say, I won't be sending my kids here. Why would anyone send his children to an institution that demonstrates such contempt, such condescending derision toward its students? Once upon a time, I loved this place. Now, I am ashamed at having been associated with such an institution, and so should its Trustees, its faculty and its administration. The only thing that gives me hope is the student body. Thank goodness, it is as intelligent, as open-minded and as conscientious as ever. (More than I can say for the administration.) Quite frankly, I am perplexed at the complacency with which all of this is being accepted. Where is the outrage? Where is the dedication to principle which has historically characterized what was once a fine University? The administration and my generous benefactors at OFSA have made it abundantly clear they have no respect whatsoever for principle, for ethics or for justice. They have all too clearly shown the degree of respect they give us "students" whom they view as imbecilic check-writers rather than scholars. I suggest that instead of parodying the motto Leges Sine Moribus Vanae -- laws without morals mean nothing -- the administration should simply abridge it to "morals mean nothing." This would at least have the advantage of being honest and consistent. Furthermore, any and all images of Benjamin Franklin should be taken down from University property, if only for the sake of his memory. I'm sure he would vomit at the thought that an institution of his creation had the insolence and temerity to force people into virtue. And so, Brothers and Sisters, I exhort you all: engage in community service, by all means. Do so for the benefit of your community as well as for personal growth. But conscientiously refrain from doing so under duress. You are adults. Nobody has the right to make you virtuous; nobody has the authority to compel you to follow their version of righteousness.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
