The Bowdoin Orient

A few weeks ago, Dartmouth College students occupied one of the campus’ administrative buildings in the hopes of promoting a rather zealous progressive agenda. The Wall Street Journal, in turn, wrote a scathing op-ed about the incident.  

This small band of protestors insisted upon reforms such as formal racial admission quotas, the school health insurance plan covering sex change operations and even “censoring the library catalogue for offensive terms.” 

The massive fiscal, administrative, political and opportunity costs of implementing such changes aside, the episode was an excellent example of mistaking acceptance for tolerance. The discrepancy between the two terms is very real and understanding the difference would at the very least minimize the collective amount of bitching from both leftist activists (read: bloggers) and conservatives who cherry-pick their opponents’ more extreme points.

Tolerance is the minimum amount of action that society can reasonably require from an individual. It means showing indifference toward practices, beliefs, customs and identities that are held by other groups in the population. 

I’m talking about customs that are legal and do not have negative impacts on the rest of society (pedophilia would not qualify, but LGBTQ issues would). “Indifference,” in this case, means that an individual must not say or do anything that might harm these groups in any way. 

This individual is free to think whatever she (he, ze?) wants concerning other people’s values. She can still comfortably exist within the bounds of tolerance so long as she does not display any negative thought in a malevolent way. 

Tolerance insists that one not harm others in a group, but it also does not mandate that one push the opposite way—past the point of neutrality—and actively support, endorse or even be content with an entity. Such behavior falls into the realm of acceptance.

Acceptance moves beyond open mindedness and necessitates a change in personal opinions, views and preferences. Not only is the individual expected to peacefully coexist with other groups, but he is also expected to embrace them and all that they stand for. Thus, calling for acceptance as a baseline obliges members of society who wish to be regarded as somewhat politically correct (whatever that means today) to completely alter their personalities and characters to conform to another subjective conception of a perfect world. 

Forcing or demanding that another consent to your conventions because they are more progressive or “right” is as ridiculous as it is ironic: such a hypocrite has become intolerant of others’ dissenting (but not derogatory) conclusions. Intolerance has no place in modern society. But by enforcing acceptance, the self-proclaimed liberator  transforms into a tyrannical oppressor.Do not misconstrue this as an attack against the left, progressivism or related interests. This is a criticism of those who demand too much of a largely moderate majority. By not settling for any less than acceptance, certain activists are inadvertently damaging their own cause by inseparably associating frivolous complaints with more serious and legitimate grievances.

Returning to the Dartmouth example, do the bulk of those who desire gender equality (presumably a fair amount of the total population at the New Hampshire institution, and at Bowdoin as well) really also want “gender-neutral bathrooms in all facilities, including locker rooms?” I will boldly guess not. 

I caution those fighting for a cause to take into account the difference between tolerance and acceptance when considering what they campaign for. They might realize that victory—widespread tolerance—can be achieved without resounding affirmation from the masses. 

Ever since coming to Bowdoin, I have steadily increased my coffee intake. At first it was fairly innocuous—two cups or so in the morning. But who can say no to 19 opportunities a week to consume remarkably average Seacoast joe? After a constant progression over the last two years, well, let’s just say I consider coffee my main source of hydration. 

For the record, I do not think this is sustainable, smart or healthy in the slightest. It is not even about the caffeine anymore. I rely on the very act of drinking coffee to feel normal. I admit to having a legitimate addiction to the substance, and I entirely accept this personal vice.

It is no secret that we all have dependencies, some more serious and severe than others. While the  more obvious ones range from social media to chemicals to exercise, there are also more subtle attachments out there. It is possible to be reliant on another person for their companionship, or even the vicarious use of their enviable social standing. Some people need the approval of crowds or the wider public in order to feel whole.

The notion of “finance” at Bowdoin is a polarizing subject. Many see it as the antithesis of what a liberal arts education stands for and as a soulless construct that produces nothing, yet takes much. Others, however, exhibit great desire (perhaps quietly out of fear of derision) and ultimately intern and work within the financial realm. Consulting firms such as Deloitte and Cambridge, investment banks such as Cowen, and a host of hedge funds regularly recruit Bowdoin students. There is no question that a future in finance is an aspiration shared by many at this school. The Career Planning  Center sees this interest and in turn does its best to attract relevant companies and personalities. They have even been accused of placing too much emphasis on finance.

But even with this obvious enthusiasm for the field, there is little support on the academic front. No doubt Bowdoin has a strong economics department. The absence, however, of a full-time professor who focuses on finance or accounting, basic business concepts and, frankly, Excel, is quite mysterious. The College currently does not have a tenured position or even a tenure track for an academic who wishes to become a professor of finance. For this reason, it is difficult to attract high caliber applicants like other departments.  This is not an attack against potential future Bowdoin finance professors, but a reality the school faces today.

Returning to the aims of a liberal arts education, I agree that extreme specialization in a discipline such as accounting is contrary to the critical thinking Bowdoin is trying to instill in its students. We are not a business school, just as we are not an engineering, trade or “sports development” institution, nor should we try to be any of these. At some point, however, specificity in more routine, dull or “low IQ” skills, like Excel modeling, should be taught to those whose futures require it. Two weekends a year of Training the Street courses is simply insufficient.

The unnamed dad in the Calvin and Hobbes comic series had a popular refrain. Whenever Calvin complained about something (usually a father-son bonding activity) his dad always responded with a because-I-said-so reason, followed by, “Besides, it builds character.” The importance of these character-building moments in our lives should not be understated. 

As long as I can remember my family motto has been “suck it up.” I have come to realize that through their mildly ostensible harshness, my parents were trying to do me a favor. Not only do excruciating experiences—such as airport hang overs on international flights—make someone a more versed and interesting individual, they also contribute to the stock of mental discipline. 

Before proceeding, I think it is wise to actually define ‘mental discipline.’ I see it as the ability to muster the willingness to do something that is undesirable, but ultimately necessary or beneficial. Ending a Netflix binge and getting back to work, resisting a third helping of pie at Bowdoin’s Thanksgiving dinner, and showing up to class on Friday morning (shudder) all in some way require varying degrees of mental toughness.

People are always looking to justify their alcohol consumption: “It’s heart-healthy,” they say. “But my doctor said in moderation…” “It’s just one beer/glass/handle.” “I have to hydrate somehow!” Let’s be honest, we all know the purported health benefits of alcohol are complete nonsense. If you think this is about to turn into a pro-sobriety rant, relax and take another sip of your Friday Thorne-brunch mimosa. I am here to argue that alcohol and social drinking have, and will continue to be, essential to the functioning of both the business and political worlds.

I have written previously that business deals are built on personal relationships and that facilitating and creating these connections is key to success. I stand by this and, bear with me here, submit that social scenarios are what really build these relationships. If college has taught us anything, it is that alcohol is a popular compliment to (and often the focus of) these social situations.

JSTOR has a shocking number of studies (more than zero) regarding the effect of alcohol on groups of professionals. One article cites how certain cultures create trust through drinking rituals. The Chinese commonly begin  professional drinks with a toast to friendship, dual prosperity and the like, and finish with the phrase “ganbei”—or “bottoms up.”