In less than three weeks, Cameron will be awash with bobbing blobs of blue: a stampede of hopping feet vertically propels faces encrusted with paint. Behold the enduring war cry: “GO TO HELL CAROLINA, GO TO HELL!” And golly, we feel great banishing our neighbors to the infernal pits. We gleefully rejoice when our team’s foul goes unnoticed. A twisted Tarheell ankle wrings out hoots of delight from the Crazies, even as the player’s face writhes in anguish.

Such is the ethics of parochialism: the practice of prioritizing the happiness of a select few over the happiness of the many.

For those not familiar with Cameron Crazies, check out this video of parochialism in action:

This communal frenzy is not morally bankrupt. There are three reasons why a good person could, or even must, have a parochial moral compass.

First and foremost, a good person has to be a person. As people, we thrive on our social relations, be it the narrative of an imagined community, such as America or Duke, or the biological ties which tether a father’s affection to his toddler. We cannot be shorn of special obligations. Caring for a select group of people who are an integral, inextricable part of ourselves can be construed as ethical self-regarding.

Next, what constitutes the goodness of a good person? Goodness cannot be divorced from what it means to be a person. Nourishing the social identities we have either chosen or been bestowed with forces trade offs. A dollar spent on pediatric care could have provided Malaria vaccines that would have preserved more quality/disability-adjusted life years. However, being good involves being parochially other-regarding, selectively diverting our limited time, money, and affections to those who help us meaningfully flourish as a social being.

Finally, a healthy dose of parochialism can help us make decisions. A person cannot digest all necessary information to make a utility-maximising decision in every circumstance. Thus, parochialism helps us choose and lends clarity to the consequences of ethically-knotted decisions.

But note the caveat: “a healthy dose.” Dragged to the extremes, parochialism can be unbridled racism or a callous disregard for people considered the alien “other.” The idea of a person as a social being also expands the horizons of one’s moral considerations. As we bump, rub shoulders with, and converse with the “other”, more people trickle into our social life. However, come the 13th of February, the Grand Canyon between two shades of blue remains vituperatively, and quite ethically, profound.

___

Jing Song Ng (T’13) is a recently graduated Public Policy and Cultural Anthropology double major. At Duke, Jing Song was a dedicated member of Duke Debate and wrote a column for The Chronicle, “Jingapore Says.”

Crouse College at Syracuse University, credit rju92 via flickr

At Syracuse University, the line between a public and private institution has become blurry.

Earlier this month, The Chronicle of Higher Education analyzed the chancellorship of Nancy Cantor, who has pushed the university’s benefits past the campus’ walls and into the town of Syracuse. At the university’s expense, it has embarked on many city projects such as refurbishing public areas and offering tuition to local high school graduates under Cantor’s tenure. Although she has encouraged faculty members to focus their research on the town of Syracuse, some professors have blamed Cantor for SU’s sliding reputation and budgetary shortfalls.

“The administration will give you a list of things we’ve done to improve research and teaching, but what is the top priority?” Robert Van Gulick, a SU philosophy professor, asked the Chronicle. “Some people feel that off-campus things that have practical applications in the city and the world get most support. That’s good for the city, but is it good for the university?”

Cantor’s decision to focus on the town surrounding the university is a classically utilitarian choice: allocating resources in order to benefit the many (the town), at the expense of a few (the university).

On the one hand, a university’s mission is typically academic – though Cantor said she views SU more as a public good than an ivory tower – and professors have worked diligently to maintain the school’s academic goal, through teaching and research. It would seem only fair that the faculty would be able to reap the benefits of their labor, instead of watching their funds being funneled into the surrounding town. Additionally, I’m sure many would argue that the results of their research will inevitably benefit the public, and withholding funds from that research would only limit its capabilities.

But maybe partnering with the surrounding town would be more beneficial than not. In his book The Uses of the University, renowned educator Clark Kerr says issues of public concern have become major issues for American universities, spurring research about topics ranging from public health to national security and defense. This means that even private universities, such as SU, not only have a responsibility to the public but could benefit from this sort of partnership.

Kerr even notes that the ideal location for a university is in an industrial city verging on becoming a slum, much like Syracuse, because the school and town can work together to solve civic problems. Duke’s and the University of North Carolina’s growing relationship with the Raleigh-Durham area is a great example. Although there are many run-down and depressed areas of town, there is still a lot of potential for the area because of the work of students and faculty members and thriving industry in the Research Triangle. President Obama has even selected Durham to be the focal point of the new Jobs and Competitiveness Council, which can only mean good things for the surrounding universities.

When he spoke in Durham this summer, the Duke Chronicle reported President Obama saying, “Because you’ve got these great schools, you can hold your own talent draft—not just in basketball, but when it comes to highly skilled workers.”

A recent study conducted by researchers at Columbia University and Cornell University found that many people who hold utilitarian viewpoints, when applied in certain situations, also host psychopathic or Machiavellian tendencies. For example, permitting the torture of an innocent child so that an entire society may live in bliss, a utilitarian decision, might be considered cold by some.

Cantor, however, is exhibiting the good kind of utilitarianism – making a few professors a little bit angry in order to revitalize an entire town in desperate need of help.

For the record, Texas Tech’s football went 8-5 last year.

But who knows? Maybe the man’s family is starving with his measly $1.5 million salary from last year. Don’t worry though, both Coach Tuberville and the athletic director declined to comment when inquired by the press.

The university president Bailey says he is “sympathetic,” but they are keeping a promise they made last year (what a man of his word! but don’t they have contracts for professors to honor as well?).

To expand more on the topic, here’s an interesting video featuring Coach Calhoun, the head basketball coach of the University of Connecticut, if you haven’t seen it yet:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xokthY5zuPU]

He did bring up a good point though: the UConn basketball program does bring in lots of revenue and I’m sure, good images for the university. But should an academic institution really decide that an athletic program is worth more for the university? What message does that send to its students? Who gets to decide that? I’m not a big fan of picking quality of instructions on the field over quality of instructions in classrooms. Besides, who is it to say that a presentation made by a professor in an academia conference is less important than a win on a football field, and how do you measure that? Yes, athletic programs generate much more money for the university, but a university is not a for-profit, and I’m sure the majority of the profit generated doesn’t go to academic programs but stay in the athletic departments.

So should the university honor Tuberville’s contract? Is it unethical for Tuberville to accept the raise? Should we really take this kind of utilitarianism approach when it comes to deciding where funding goes in a university?

Here are two links that have some stats about average college professor and football coach salaries.

P.S. For those wondering what my “sports loyalty bias” is, I am a die-hard Duke and Auburn fan (my school and my hometown), who I am happy and proud to say are the reigning champions in men’s basketball and football. I know I have some questions to answer as well, and I am very well aware of the fact that Tommy Tuberville coached my beloved Auburn football team just three years ago.