[Mb-civic] Virtues and Victims By DAVID BROOKS

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 9, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Virtues and Victims
By DAVID BROOKS

All great scandals occur twice, first as Tom Wolfe novels, then as real-life
events that nightmarishly mimic them. And so after "I Am Charlotte Simmons,"
it was perhaps inevitable that Duke University would have to endure a
mini-social explosion involving athletic thugs, resentful townies, nervous
administrators, male predators, aggrieved professors, binge drinking and
lust gone wild.

If you wander through the thicket of commentary that already surrounds the
Duke lacrosse scandal, the first thing you notice is how sociological it is.
In almost every article and piece of commentary, the event is portrayed not
as a crime between individuals but as a clash between classes, races and
sexes.

"This whole sordid party scene played out at the prestigious university is
deeply disturbing on a number of levels, including those involving gender,
race and the notion of athletic entitlement and privilege," a USA Today
columnist wrote.

"The collisions are epic: black and white, town and gown, rich and poor,
privilege and plain, jocks and scholars," a CBS analyst observed.

The key word in the coverage has been "entitlement." In a thousand different
ways commentators have asserted (based on no knowledge of the people
involved) that the lacrosse players behaved rancidly because they felt
privileged and entitled to act as they pleased.

The main theme shaping the coverage is that inequality leads to
exploitation. The whites felt free to exploit the blacks. The men felt free
to exploit women. The jocks felt free to exploit everybody else. As a Duke
professor, Houston Baker, wrote, their environment gave the lacrosse players
"license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech and feel proud of themselves in
the bargain."

It could be that this environmental, sociological explanation of events is
entirely accurate. But it says something about our current intellectual
climate that almost every reporter and commentator used these mental
categories so unconsciously and automatically.

Several decades ago, American commentators would have used an entirely
different vocabulary to grapple with what happened at Duke. Instead of the
vocabulary of sociology, they would have used the language of morality and
character.

If you were looking at this scandal through that language, you would look at
the e-mail message one of the players sent on the night in question. This is
the one in which a young man joked about killing strippers and cutting off
their skin.

You would say that the person who felt free to send this message to his
buddies had crashed through several moral guardrails. You would surmise that
his character had been corroded by shock jocks and raunch culture and that
he'd entered a nihilistic moral universe where young men entertain each
other with bravura displays of immoralism. A community so degraded, you
might surmise, is not a long way from actual sexual assault.

You would then ask questions very different from the sociological ones: How
have these young men slipped into depravity? Why have they not developed
sufficient character to restrain their baser impulses?

The educators who used this vocabulary several decades ago understood that
when you concentrate young men, they have a tropism toward barbarism. That's
why these educators cared less about academics than about instilling a
formula for character building. The formula, then called chivalry, consisted
first of manners, habits and self-imposed restraints to prevent the downward
slide.

Furthermore, it was believed that each of us had a godlike and a demonic
side, and that decent people perpetually strengthened the muscles of their
virtuous side in order to restrain the deathless sinner within. If you read
commencement addresses from, say, the 1920's, you can actually see college
presidents exhorting their students to battle the beast within ‹ a sentiment
that if uttered by a contemporary administrator would cause the audience to
gape and the earth to fall off its axis.

Today that old code of obsolete chivalry is gone, as is a whole vocabulary
on how young people should think about character.

But in "I Am Charlotte Simmons," Wolfe tried to steer readers back past the
identity groups to the ghost in the machine, the individual soul. Wolfe's
heroine is a modern girl searching for honor in a world where the social
rules have dissolved, and who commits "moral suicide" because she is
unprepared for what she faces.

Many critics reacted furiously to these parts of Wolfe's book. And we are
where we are.

Home

    * World
    * U.S.
    * N.Y. / Region
    * Business
    * Technology
    * Science
    * Health
    * Sports
    * Opinion
    * Arts
    * Style
    * Travel
    * Jobs
    * Real Estate
    * Autos
    * Back to Top

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map