Throughout American history, the country has a tendency to move in one direction or another; in the 1960s it trended toward civil rights and the 1970s brought us the sexual revolution. The 1980s then proceeded to wipe out all feelings of cohesive community unity in favor of the "looking out for number one" philosophy, and in the 1990s the country regained its conscious and combined the best aspects of the previous 30 years.
Recently, however, the nation appears to be trending in a direction of unmitigated paternalism, and Wisconsin sadly appears to be one of the states leading the charge.
Law enforcement officials in Milwaukee (among other cities) have recently engaged in a campaign against a line of T-shirts that have the words "stop snitching" sprawled across the front. The shirts gained popularity after basketball star Carmelo Anthony appeared in a video appropriately titled "Stop Snitching." Officials contend such clothing has the extraordinary power to prevent individuals from talking to the police.
A typical snitch would be someone who agrees to testify against their former accomplices in order to receive a lightened sentence. If law enforcement officials are, in fact, correct in their reasoning, one would be forced to believe potential snitches would have no idea whatsoever that their friends would be the slightest bit peeved about being ratted out and thrown in jail.
Also, let's not forget that we are talking about a T-shirt here, not an organized campaign threatening the lives of snitches. The contention that a simple T-shirt would prevent an individual from ratting out their friends to the police is simply ridiculous. Those complaining about the shirts clearly give far too much credit to the power of advertising. If we were to believe anything and everything an individual's midsection tells us, the entire nation would immediately fall in love with a Jewish/Italian/Irish boy, and everyone in Madison would consider President Bush an international terrorist.
Those opposing the T-shirts are, in effect, attempting to prevent certain individuals from expressing their opinion simply because they do not agree with the message. They apparently hold the rest of the country in such low esteem that they believe the average American is susceptible to a lowly T-shirt. In short, this is a classic example of paternalism run amok: don't think for yourself, because we know what's best for you simpletons.
Unfortunately, recent examples of paternalism do not stop with a group of overly concerned public servants.
Last month, the University of Wisconsin announced it will send letters to the parents of those students caught drinking underage, even if not on university property. While the aim of the policy clearly is to curb freshmen and sophomores from drinking themselves into oblivion, the university apparently forgot it is an institution of higher learning and not a surrogate mother handing out spankings to those who fall out of line. UW students thus are subject to retribution that individuals of the same age not enrolled in college have the pleasure of avoiding.
While the University of Wisconsin has clearly adopted paternalistic policies towards its students, high schools across the nation have also taken it upon themselves to punish students who act in such a way the administration deems inappropriate.
A high school outside of Chicago (admittedly my Alma Mater) last month kicked more than 40 students out of their Homecoming dance — not because the students were drunk, starting fights or attempting to spike the punch, but because uptight school officials thought they were dancing in an "inappropriate manner." How could students dancing provocatively possibly make them less prepared for college or the real world? Adults in positions of authority have once again rained on students' parade by forcing their skewed view of right and wrong on unsuspecting teens.
In another high school dance-related story, a principal in Long Island cancelled prom because he found out students were renting expensive houses in the Hamptons for post-prom parties. The principal cancelled the dance because he felt students were spending too much money. He apparently did not care that he was disappointing a few hundred sex-craved teens, and students not abusing their parents' credit cards clearly did not factor into his decision. After all, by canceling prom he clearly stopped affluent teenagers from not only spending an abundance of money, but also from drinking and having sex. Bravo.
Paternalism is a faulty way of reasoning that consistently underestimates those inappropriately deemed unfit to make decisions for themselves, whether it is law enforcement officials incessantly whining over a T-shirt or school/university administrators punishing students for being, well, students. Ageism will catch up with you.
Robert S. Hunger ([email protected]) is the editorial page content editor and is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
