Choice and Free Thought on College Campuses
Ilan Wurman
Last Updated: 10/30/08 Section: Editorial
In completing Claremont Hall and renovating Auen and Fawcett this past summer, one of the CMC administration's goals was to make all of these dorms "LEED-certified" and "sustainable." While protecting and preserving the environment is a worthy cause, I must admit my skepticism of the costs and benefits of the new dorm's design. Many have already complained about the lack of control over the air conditioning system. Some students prefer 68 degrees, the lowest setting, while others prefer 76 degrees, the highest setting; some even prefer temperatures outside of that range, but the administration clearly did not give much consideration to those particular students. Regardless of preference, all have to deal with a centrally planned and controlled system.
One has to ask whether the energy saved by this central planning is worth the corresponding loss of freedom. Why can't the school encourage individual actions, such as shutting off the air when leaving the room, which will maximize student comfort while reducing waste, rather than imposing rationing on everyone? One could pose this same question to Pitzer College, which has done away with trays at its dining hall, or the students who pioneered a "trayless Tuesday" last year at Collins, or those who wanted to get rid of sushi dinners.
As college students, we are all mature enough to make our own choices when presented with information. Some students don't take trays because they don't find them necessary and want to save energy, while others find them necessary or convenient. College should equip students with the knowledge to make reasoned choices for themselves, not deny them the freedom to make everyday decisions so that one particular group can feel better about itself knowing it has forced others to conform to what it thinks is more "socially responsible."
Similarly, environmentalists should not try to influence where a college chooses to invest its endowment. In a recent College Sustainability Report Card developed by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, CMC scored an "F" grade on its "Endowment Transparency" for a lack of openness in its investment practices. But the purpose of the college's investments should be to enrich its endowment, thereby enabling the college to provide its students with the best possible education that it can afford.
One has to ask whether the energy saved by this central planning is worth the corresponding loss of freedom. Why can't the school encourage individual actions, such as shutting off the air when leaving the room, which will maximize student comfort while reducing waste, rather than imposing rationing on everyone? One could pose this same question to Pitzer College, which has done away with trays at its dining hall, or the students who pioneered a "trayless Tuesday" last year at Collins, or those who wanted to get rid of sushi dinners.
As college students, we are all mature enough to make our own choices when presented with information. Some students don't take trays because they don't find them necessary and want to save energy, while others find them necessary or convenient. College should equip students with the knowledge to make reasoned choices for themselves, not deny them the freedom to make everyday decisions so that one particular group can feel better about itself knowing it has forced others to conform to what it thinks is more "socially responsible."
Similarly, environmentalists should not try to influence where a college chooses to invest its endowment. In a recent College Sustainability Report Card developed by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, CMC scored an "F" grade on its "Endowment Transparency" for a lack of openness in its investment practices. But the purpose of the college's investments should be to enrich its endowment, thereby enabling the college to provide its students with the best possible education that it can afford.
Be the first to comment on this story