Brooks on the 'Organization Kid,' the moral future

By Alison Yang

Last April, David Brooks created a minor uproar among Ivy Leaguers with his Atlantic Monthly article "The Organization Kid" [AM, 4/01] which drew a critical portrait of today's elite college students. The "organization kid" Brooks described is a morally apathetic creature, driven only by a desire to succeed and to join the future elite.

COURTESY AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

Yalies got a chance to face off with Brooks this week—he visited campus as a Poynter Fellow. The fellowship, established in 1971 by newspaper mogul Nelson Poynter, Class of 1927, offers students and faculty a chance to better understand the role of the media in society. Brooks is a senior editor of The Weekly Standard. He is also a contributing editor to Newsweek and a commentator on National Public Radio and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

The Herald got a chance to speak with Brooks on Wed., Oct. 24, before he delivered a speech at Yale Law School.

Yale Herald: In "The Organization Kid," you drew conclusions based on interviews with students recommended by faculty members. Doesn't that introduce "sampling bias" into your investigation?

David Brooks: There could have been a bit of sampling bias. I went to Princeton with no expectations of what I would discover. The main thrust of my argument was developed not so much from interviews with students, but from the universal views of the faculty. Usually when a reporter investigates a story, he finds a full spectrum of different perspectives from the community. What surprised me at Princeton was that almost every professor I spoke to had the same view. They all described the students as hard-working and excellent but too deferential to authority. This striking consistency in the opinions of the faculty was really the basis of my article. I'm a journalist, not a real sociologist. As journalists, we face deadlines and many other restraints. As hard as we try, at times it's simply impossible for us to cover the whole spectrum.

YH: You argued that moral instruction and character-building at elite universities is inadequate. What virtues should be taught to students?

DB: If I knew that, I would be better than the professors I wrote about. Honestly, I'm an organization kid myself. When I was investigating the histories of schools such as Yale and Princeton, I noticed that at one time, people really discussed evil in this world. Presidents of Princeton spoke of the devil in commencement addresses. It's hardly imaginable that anyone would discuss evil in such tangible terms today. I noticed that the sophisticated elite has a very different attitude towards evil as compared to those less educated and the unprivileged.

For example, a lot of people from the heartland of the country—many of whom never went to college—seem to speak of evil much more comfortably than the academics. The moral wrestling between good and evil used to be a part of the Ivy League life. But it has disappeared from discussions now. This results in a level of complacency in students.

A professor once commented that to speak of character and virtue today is like describing gravity. We have the word "gravity," yet the concept is not tangible-you simply can't see and touch gravity. In the same sense, we have the vocabulary for virtues, but we have not seen the traits of courage and honor demonstrated on the battlefields as older generations have. And this is part of the reason why moral education is difficult today.

YH: In your view, how has the current crisis affected this generation?

DB: Well, I'm rather curious of that myself. I'd love to get a sense of that through visiting Yale and speaking to students. I've been to various campuses in the Midwest since Sept. 11. What I've seen in the student response there makes me optimistic. Only six percent of all Americans under the age of 65 have served in the military. So my generation is much more accustomed to real war than yours. I do believe, in time, the younger generation will prove themselves ready for the challenge.

YH: You suggested that young people are brought up in a more pampered environment. But decades ago, students at elite universities were pampered in a different way. Did privilege influence moral development differently fifty years ago?

DB: I do believe that older generations of the establishment were pampered in a different way. Prep schools were brutal and horrible places. Academics were not that important, and there was a crushing social system. One was either in the circle and initiated to the right club or one was kicked out and an outcast. This brutal social system was accepted because there was a conscious effort to toughen up the pampered rich kids for the real world. This was a way of strengthening and testing a person. To the older generation's credit, they did demonstrate a type of toughness when they went off to fight the world wars. They were more pampered in some regards, but much more tough-minded than we are today. We're tougher in our work ethic and in our abilities to pass all sorts of standardized tests. Nowadays the emphasis isn't on the social life, but on academics and merit.

YH: The major shortcoming of an Organization Kid is his intense and single-minded focus on personal achievement and success. Though an unprecedented number of students are involved in community and volunteer services, some may be more interested in "beefing up resumes" and networking than in the charities and causes themselves. Do you believe that some students may be doing the moral things but are driven by the wrong motivations?

DB: I give people a pass on that. There is a bit of self-interest mixed in with most noble things people do. For example, you can get a tax deduction with a donation. Yes, many are padding their resumes and making the right contacts. People a generation or two ago had the same motivations for these volunteer service, but the fact is they didn't do it. A professor once said to me, "I don't know where these kids find lepers, but they do find them and they manage to read to them." Putting the joke aside, I do believe there is genuine enthusiasm.

YH: In the days since Sept. 11, there seems to be an intriguing difference in opinions of middle-class America and the academic, literary elite. The working-class seems to be much more willing to rally around the flag. Bush's approval rating, for example, is unprecedentedly high. Many in the literary circle, such as Susan Sontag and Arundhati Roi, have spoken in highly critical terms of American foreign policy and the war effort. What do you think is the root of this difference in opinion?

DB: The root of the difference lies in differing attitudes towards power. My left-wing friends from Washington all support President Bush and the war effort. They are contemptuous of the opinions passed around right here on campus. They like power and they believe in using power for good causes. A lot of the people in the literary and academic circles have sanctified powerlessness. They tend to distrust power and authority in all regards. They perceive the out-groups, the victims of colonialism and patriarchy, as holders of real virtue.

Honestly, they should dislike the Taliban more than anyone else on Earth. The Taliban is the definition of a sexist, racist, and closed society. Yet these writers can't reconcile the fact that America is exercising a lot of power around the world. They're quick to point out the shortcomings of American policies because of this dislike of government power. Susan Sontag may still believe that every time America exercises power, it's falling back to colonialism. But I think the rest the nation has gotten over that idea.

YH: Your works tend to focus on the lifestyles of the upper-middle class. You seem to be both fascinated by and critical of the educated elite. Like Fitzgerald, you expose the inadequacies of a class to which you belong. Has being one of the intellectual elite softened your criticism?

DB: I often say that I've built a career on self-loathing. But I don't think being of a member of the educated elite has weakened my analysis. Being a journalist, I maintain a certain aloofness towards those around me. Though I'm part of the crowd, I still observe it with an objective eye. Most critics of my book, Bobos in Paradise, complained about how soft I was being in my criticisms. They complained that I hadn't exposed how spoiled, self-interested, and money-obsessed the upper class really is. I actually think that since Sept. 11, my more generous views of the elite have been vindicated. There has been a very wholesome response from the upper class in terms of donations, etc. Materialism is not the only thing the American upper-middle class is about. Beneath the Lexus and gold club memberships, values of generosity and charity are still there.

Back to YH Features...