the new york times: american colleges and universities turn to "gentle parenting" for students
2024-09-06
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
the new york times, september 3, original title: double standards that infantilize american college studentsimagine two 20-year-olds: one is a full-time college student, the other is a full-time waiter. one night, the two go out drinking and having a blast. if the college student is caught drinking by campus police, he will most likely get a free ride home on the school bus, while the drunk waiter is more likely to be charged with a misdemeanor. if the waiter doesn't show up the next morning or mixes up the orders, he won't have a long-term job. but the hungover college student who slept in class and didn't turn in his homework on time has a bright future.
colleges don’t openly refer to their students as children, but they treat them as such. the relative tolerance of students at american universities can seem appealing, especially when compared to our imagined plight of waiters. but there is a dark side. the result of this combination of tolerance and control, which protects them from responsibility, actually infantilizes students. on the one hand, it is almost impossible for a stanford student to face serious consequences for drinking at a party while underage. on the other hand, with extensive monitoring of social gatherings and detailed registration procedures, it may be more difficult to find a party to attend at stanford than to be punished for drinking at a party. in principle, this situation should not exist. universities have long since abolished the principle of “substitute parental responsibility,” which gave them parental power over their students. at many schools, students are subject to curfews, visitor restrictions, and other rules to curb sexual behavior.
in the 1960s, the practice of "substitute parenting" was challenged and eventually replaced by a hands-off approach to student life outside the classroom. during this period (known as the "bystander era"), students' extracurricular lives were relatively free from administrative interference, meaning that students were generally not punished for drinking, sexual behavior, etc. but freedom breeds risk, and risk sometimes leads to harm. after a series of lawsuits, universities were forced to abandon their hands-off approach.
by the 1990s, the “bystander era” gave way to the “caretaker” or “guide” era that continues today. the guide model aims to create a safe environment that provides students with a variety of opportunities and choices for personal growth while eliminating those choices that could lead to permanent harm—initially physical, but increasingly to spirit, reputation, and transcript.
in the "guide" model, it is not that students have no rights, but safety comes first. the university does not restrict students for the sake of their moral qualities or academic standards, but restores control in the name of health and safety. these social controls are therapeutic, not punitive, and they are the "gentle parenting" in the relationship between the university and students. but some people believe that this model is just a paternalistic style that is secretly harmful. (author rita koganzon, translated by chen xin)
