In Defense of Elehightism
Does one’s partisan biases have root in their quasi-predestined role in higher education? That is to say, do Lehigh’s conservative students tend to accept the so-called social inequalities that Lehigh’s left-leaning students often cite within the institution itself? Does the role of Lehigh, as a producer of high-grossing graduates, work to season a new-bred upper class, and if so, should we feel guilty about our role within said system?
The role of an elite university in moderating its concessional perks has long been a matter of contention in higher academia. No doubt, as the presupposed 35th best university in the nation, Lehigh ranks among the top schools for graduate performance and undergraduate selectivity – two rational hallmarks of a quality institution. Nonetheless, students at Lehigh are nearly wholly unaware of how their experience truly correlates with their potential experience at another, more “mainstream” university with significantly higher matriculation rates, (such as Penn State, et cetera). That is to say, we know what we live because we live it.
Nevertheless, transfer students often provide a fairly accurate litmus test as to how the whole-package university experience can comparatively be measured against another institution of higher education. Having spoken with several transfers with respect to their past and present experiences in a collegiate setting, it has come to my attention that the hypotheses regarding a university’s role in society closely toe the line with the inorganic class conflict that arises within the university’s system itself. How the students cope with the Lehigh microcosm largely impacts their partisan biases beyond their societal role.
Consider, for a moment, what the Lehigh Experience means for you, dear reader. As freshmen, you have emphasis placed on the celebration of your accomplishments thus far, with a set tone as to what the odds of your successful completion of Lehigh really mean. The societal ramifications of a Lehigh degree are subject to their own brand of institutional research, provided by Career Services, who has ensured that, upon graduation, you will likely enter your field with advantages. Your work at Lehigh is complementary both to your intellect and your resume.
Notwithstanding, tomorrow’s future leaders are entitled to top-notch facilities. Despite the persistent culture of cynicism present both in this news journal, and Lehigh’s official student news bi-weekly, The Brown & White, where students such as myself find everything and anything to be detestably frustrating, in the grand scheme of things, life isn’t so bad. We have teams of individuals at beck and call, renovating and repairing facilities, holding our hand through the job search and application process, feeding us in what fifty years ago would be an unimaginable variety, and entertaining us with a roster of speakers, presenters, performances, and other options for making the most of ones’ time. There are, in fact, so many simultaneous activities taking place on Lehigh’s campus that attending and digesting every one is beyond impossible.
Likewise, in the vein of other elite universities, Lehigh trains its students that second chances, extensions, and character-based social promotion are to be expected. This strongly correlates with the ambition-driven young upwardly-mobile professional lifestyle that so many of Lehigh’s graduates will enter. The nature of the oft-referred “good-old-boy” system retains some occasional pull in the course of completion with a smattering of Lehigh students. To establish some degree of reference for this posited educational aristocracy, one may reference The Chronicle of Higher Education – an article entitled “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education,” by William Deresiewicz.
So what exactly does this have to do with partisan bias? General tenets of all vintages of conservatism tend to disregard social inequality, believing it to be a product of the individual, not the system. Consequently, more “progressive,” or liberal, students tend to believe that the social environment largely impacts individuals, and that the environment is ultimately culpable. (Often, the left will attack environments made of people, such as corporations, in a quixotic move meant to confuse those who have forgotten the simple fact that corporations are ultimately an amalgam of hard-working people.)
These considerations at hand, a conservative student would turn a blind eye to accusations of social inequality on the basis of sexual, gender, or racial diversity as these issues are little impacted by the actions of those who raise their voices. That is to say, while student activist groups make lots of noise, the informed students know that real progress is made behind closed doors, not outside locked ones, and that topical band-aid solutions are intended to placate the left for the purpose of perpetuating that which takes place behind the proverbial scenes.
All the same, a left-leaning student would have an inherent sense of guilt about their position. Feeling that the environment is above the student (likely true), rather than adapting to the environment for self-improvement, the student will work to bring the environment down to their presupposed level, by working towards the windmill of social justice, stabbing at it with pitchforks while the rest of us create tangible progress.
To better illustrate the point at hand, two scenarios will be painted. The vignette with whom the readers’ sympathies lie likely mirrors their own social outlook, and consequently, their political bias.
Consider Student Alex. Alex sees success as a measure of personal flexibility; to which end, fiscal liquidity and personal networked mobility hold high regard. Regardless of the means from which Alex came, or the secondary school from which Alex graduated, s/he now comes to Lehigh equipped with the normative roster of extracurricular activities, awards, and advanced placement credit. Nothing over the top, nothing lacking – your average student.
Alex is proud that Lehigh offers such expansive facilities, and is working to build new ones. Alex splits his/her time between schoolwork, occasional nightlife, and a healthy balance of extracurricular activities, one or two of which s/he might take an executive board role in during junior or senior year. Leadership, stability, and pragmatism dominate Alex’s mindset, and while s/he regularly hears student complaints about this and that, Alex realizes that there are bigger things to worry about – namely, his/her future.
Consider Student Pat. Pat, like Alex, came from the same normative distribution of means and secondary education. Pat also holds the median in advanced placement credit, awards, and other post-secondary fodder that pads the application and makes students attractive to the school of their choice. Pat, like Alex, is also involved in his/her organizations. However, rather than leadership, Pat wants the greater good of the group to come first – namely, awareness.
Pat is frustrated that schools like Lehigh have such large endowments, yet continue to offer marginal financial aid packages to so-called disenfranchised students, such as ethnic minorities. Pat volunteers his/her time in student activist groups, such as The Rainbow Room, Break the Silence, the Progressive Student Alliance and The Women’s Center. Pat’s focus is less on his/her degree, less on his/her resume credentials, and more on the very act of learning itself. Pat puts the acquisition and accessibility of knowledge on the forefront. Pat considers Alex to be a “tool.”
Pat and Alex concurrently attend Lehigh. Both have their future planned – one craves success in the more grand-narrative sense of the term, (fiscal and social liquidity), while the other, frustrated by the nature of Lehigh’s push for “useful graduates,” seeks the elimination of so-called social injustices to ultimately improve his/her own weakened sense of self worth. One loves the school for what it is, and one loves the school for what s/he wants it to be.
The case seems to be that everyone is aware of the underlying fabric of what makes Lehigh University. A large segment of students feel a sense of guilt for what they have, and occasionally immerse themselves in short-term experiential forms of torture under the banner of social “awareness,” such as sleeping on the lawn of the University Center, on a cardboard box, to mimic a highly specific part of homelessness. Another segment looks at these students, understands the value in what they do, but is also aware of the economic and social ironies that undermine such events, (like the economic fact that most homeless are undereducated).
Members of that second segment, the Alexes of Lehigh, aren’t unaware of so-called economic and social inequalities – they just don’t care to fix them at this juncture in their life. They see their own upwardly-mobile career path as an eventual means to an end, despite the catcalls from the socially proactive students that Lehigh undergraduates must spread “awareness” to the unenlightened. In short, those who spread awareness aren’t creating new waves among anyone other than themselves. Those who criticize the yuppies for being so self-absorbed are, in a sense, the most self-absorbed of all insofar as they create “awareness” exclusively for each other on a visceral audio/visual daily experience.
To be fair, the Pats of Lehigh are correct in their assumption that the Alexes of Lehigh don’t always learn for the sake of learning, and absorb education in a purely pragmatic fashion. Likewise, so many of the Alexes have grown overly comfortable in their launch vehicle that they fail to watch the machinations of the world during their trajectory to success. It is an unfortunate byproduct that so many who are successful then wish to hoard their success, rather than share it with the next generation.
In conclusion, it may be proposed that the political partisan biases of Lehigh students may tie closely to their complacency with the nature of Lehigh as a prestigious academic institution. In either case, the sense and sensibilities of either contingent, (the Pats and Alexes) tend to often overlook each other’s points of view. In doing so, they remove the most important, unilateral component of a college education. That is, the free and open exchange of ideas.
