Petty Tyranny Revisited
Saturday morning – while most of those who write for or read Ricochet (especially those on the West coast) are asleep – I will be up and about, spending the bulk of my Saturday morning in a fashion unheard of at Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Williams, Princeton, or, for that matter, the University of Michigan. Because I teach at Hillsdale College, I will be meeting with the parents of my students from 8:30 a.m. on – at ten minutes intervals – to discuss their progress. Here, slightly edited, is what I wrote with regard to this peculiar ritual on 24 October 2009 for Powerline:
If last year is any guide, something on the order of 800 parents will descend on us this weekend. Those who come to what we call Parents' Weekend are, for the most part, parents of the 400-freshmen we take in every year.
Most of the conversations that I have with these parents will be inconsequential. They love their children; they worry about their well-being; and they want to be reassured that they are doing well. Once reassured, they relax.
Some conversations will, however, be of genuine importance. For some freshmen run into trouble, and there are occasions in which an intervention on the part of their parents serves a real purpose.
Some parents come back again and again. The parents of sophomores and juniors tend, however, to be more interested in meeting the professors that their children have described than in discussing their sons and daughters. They are no longer worried in the slightest concerning their progeny, and they come back a second and even a third time because they had a good time when they first ventured into the wilds of south-central Michigan.
Where I taught before I came to Hillsdale two years ago, nothing like this was possible. This is not due to the fact that Hillsdale College is well run (which it is) nor to the fact that the University of Tulsa is dysfunctional (which is also the case). It arises from the fact that Hillsdale College takes not one dime from the federal government.
With that money – whether it comes in the form of federal loans to students, research grants, or the GI Bill –comes the heavy hand of regulation. It is, of course, perfectly proper that a granting organization – whether public or private – see to it that the money it grants is spent for the purpose for which it was granted. But this is not what I have in mind.
When Washington gives money to a state government, a municipality, a school system, or even a private college, it encroaches on the autonomy of the entity whose beneficiary it is. This should come as no surprise. As any teenager will tell you, generosity is wonderful, but there are always strings attached.
In this case, the story is especially interesting, however. For the busybody who attached these particular strings, the man who denied to any institution of higher education that took in as much as a dime in federal funding the right to communicate with the parents of a student with regard to his well-being, was a libertarian.
His name was James F. Buckley. He was the brother of William F. Buckley. In the late 1960s, he was elected a Senator from New York on the Conservative ticket; and in 1974 he authored an amendment to a federal bill, aimed at protecting the putative privacy rights of eighteen-year-olds (among others).
Some years ago, while teaching at the University of Tulsa, I had a freshman in my honors course who showed up for the first class and then disappeared. I thought nothing of it; I presumed that he had dropped the course (as many students do). When he showed up four weeks later, I contacted the Dean's office and asked that they look into the matter.
It turns out that this student had turned into a binge alcoholic and was sleeping on the floor of a fraternity house, surrounded by empty whiskey bottles. But the university could not contact his parents about the matter without risking the loss of all of its federal funding.
There is, I think, a moral to the story – and I try to draw this moral in my two recent books Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty and Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift. We need government, and it is essential that the government be vigorous within its proper sphere. When, however, a government exceeds its prerogatives, especially when that government is far, far away and effectively out of sight, it is quite likely to succumb to tyranny – petty or otherwise.
We are all inclined to think that we know better than our neighbors. We are all inclined to be busybodies. When offered the opportunity to interfere, even a man as sensible as Jim Buckley is apt to succumb.
When our compatriots saw to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, legalizing the income tax, they created that temptation. What Barack Obama and the thugs with whom he has surrounded himself are trying to do right now on a very grand scale has been taking place on a much more petty scale for a very long time.
It is not enough that we throw the current crowd of rascals out (though that is essential). We need to remove the temptation to which Jim Buckley succumbed thirty-five years ago. As long as there is largesse in Washington on a magnificent scale, as long as the federal government has the wherewithal with which to offer to everyone a helping hand, our ability to govern ourselves in the ordinary business of life will be in peril. Obama may fail, but there will some day be someone who does not.
I post these words here because they are no less true than they were last year when I first penned them. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Liberty depends on economic independence.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Paul, I personally know of a young man like the student you mention in your anecdote, who could have been righted by some well-timed parental love and guidance, so your piece strikes a very personal chord with me.
Truly all of the effects of government policies, even when dreamed up by the best-intentioned souls like Mr. Buckley, are unforeseeable, and as in the case you mention they are often tragic. That student will undoubtedly, at the very, very least, not achieve as much in life as they could have, if intervention had been allowed, due to a tarnished academic record. God willing nothing worse than that occurred.
The more I learn about economics (widely conceived, like the praxeology of Mises), the more angry I become when I see government power extend out its tendrils in both small and large ways alike. All of the lost wealth, the lowered productivity, the potential hindered from actualizing, is nothing but the theft of other peoples' futures and happiness. No man has the right to take, to steal, from so many to simply advance their own intentions, no matter how hoped-for or well-conceived are their intentions.
Edited on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:41pmRe: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Amen!
Aug '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Dr Rahe, it seems to me this post is possibly related to Mr McGurn's post earlier today, entitled "Are University Students Getting Shafted?", describing how a Rutger's student, whose indiscretions were maliciously broadcast by two other students, eventually committed suicide. Wouldn't there be fewer suicides and similar catastrophes in college students' lives if parents could be notified by worried university staff before it got too late?
Like Demaratus, I have personally known students whose lives could have benefited from parental guidance had the university been able to notify their parents. I was almost one of these students myself (though in my case, the inability of my parents to cope with their children facing serious problems means that my life would likely have been no better off had my parents known at the time -- but that is a defect peculiar to my parents, and not relevant to parents in general).
I wouldn't wish to see the standard of "no communication with parents" replaced by mandatory communication with parents. Rather, I wish universities were free to decide these policies for themselves. You're right that federal funding is an almost insurmountable barrier to this.
Jul '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Professor Rahe, on the money as usual. An ironic set of factors are at work here. On the one hand, the Cult of Youth has insisted that 18 year olds must be treated as is they are independent adults, while on the other hand the Nanny State has created a web of "supports" that shields those same utes (My Cousin Vinny reference) from the consequences of their actions.
If I wanted to create a system that would completely screw kids up, that would be it!
God Bless Hillsdale.
Oct '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Dr. Rahe,
I'm convinced that the real work begins November 3rd. The level of tyranny that we've allowed to creep up and smother us is staggering. We must dismantle large parts of the government just to be able to "breathe the free air again," as Gandalf told Theoden.
As I continue to work with my Congressman and Senators in the months to come, could I count on your willingness to work with Congress to determine the best ways to effect positive change, particularly on the educational front? As Dr. Sowell reminds us, most of the wisdom is out here, not in Washington.
Jul '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Actually, to follow up on that last comment, this pretty much defines the modern liberal zeitgeist. No matter how much they claim to be for "choice", anything resembling actual choice terrifies them.
They demand to engage in activities that have traditionally resulted in terrible consequences. But then they also demand to be shielded from those consequences. Abortion is the perfect example. They say it is a matter of choice, but it is specifically designed to remove the "down side" (pregnancy) from the choice of being promiscuous.
Thomas Sowell teaches us that there are no "solutions", only trade-offs. Contemporary Liberalism cannot abide that truth. In the process they only shift the consequences, either creating different consequences for the individual (e.g. a student becoming a worthless layabout) or by forcing somweone else to pay the price for them.
Jul '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Hey Kathy, cool! Two Sowell refrences back-to-back!
Sep '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Paul A. Rahe:
This is just a somewhat related aside, but my younger brother was a student teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools last spring. He assisted in a social studies class for 8th graders. There are about a thousand sad and funny stories I could relay here, but there is one that leaves my friends speechless every time I tell it. Out of a total of about 90 kids that this teacher sees throughout a given day, there were a grand total of three (3!) parents that showed up for the parent-teacher conferences.
Aug '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Patrick Shanahan: Actually, to follow up on that last comment, this pretty much defines the modern liberal zeitgeist. No matter how much they claim to be for "choice", anything resembling actual choice terrifies them.
...Thomas Sowell teaches us that there are no "solutions", only trade-offs. Contemporary Liberalism cannot abide that truth. In the process they only shift the consequences...
How true. Modern liberalism doesn't really want choices, it wants to have "it all". But making choices means that you can't have it all.
Or, modern liberals fail to realize that making choices means you can't have it all.
A liberal relative of mine actually said the following to me: "[Expletive] our limitations! I want a better world."
Good luck with actually being able to achieve that, fella.
Edited on Oct 15, 2010 at 7:48pmMay '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
My step-sister disappeared from her university 20 years ago and we only learned about it a couple of weeks later from her worried roommates. It took weeks to find her living on the streets of DC suffering from serious mental illness. Being over 18 it was a real struggle to get her to admit herself for treatment.
All that was accomplished and she was able to make much progress with treatment and medication, but none of her deteriorating behavior had been reported to her family.
I'm so glad to have the internet and cell phones so that I can stay is regular contact with my one college kid and keep an eye on her from afar. The University of California has been quite clear that they are not able to speak to me about her at all.
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
G.A. Dean: My step-sister disappeared from her university 20 years ago and we only learned about it a couple of weeks later from her worried roommates. It took weeks to find her living on the streets of DC suffering from serious mental illness. Being over 18 it was a real struggle to get her to admit herself for treatment.
All that was accomplished and she was able to make much progress with treatment and medication, but none of her deteriorating behavior had been reported to her family.
I'm so glad to have the internet and cell phones so that I can stay is regular contact with my one college kid and keep an eye on her from afar. The University of California has been quite clear that they are not able to speak to me about her at all. · Oct 15 at 9:45pm
I am saddened but not surprised by this. It is good to keep an eye on things . . . from afar.
Edited on Oct 16, 2010 at 7:38amOct '10
Re: Petty Tyranny Revisited
Patrick Shanahan: Professor Rahe, on the money as usual. An ironic set of factors are at work here. On the one hand, the Cult of Youth has insisted that 18 year olds must be treated as is they are independent adults, while on the other hand the Nanny State has created a web of "supports" that shields those same utes (My Cousin Vinny reference) from the consequences of their actions.
If I wanted to create a system that would completely screw kids up, that would be it!
God Bless Hillsdale. · Oct 15 at 5:41pm
Well said, Patrick. The end result is that public college students are de facto wards of the state. And the state seeks to indoctrinate them as a class in collectivist thought. It has no interest in their individual welfare. If a few dozen die of alcohol poisoning, it is for the greater good.