A test of courage

On Monday, President Richard Brodhead and the Honor Council held a dinner at the Hart House on the topic of moral courage. Fifteen students were selected based on an application process that attracted 80 applicants. Although the event was well-intentioned and speaks to a relevant topic, we believe that the format and tone—which diluted the original intent of the event—prevented it from empowering students in any meaningful way.

As part of the event, students were asked about the “moral cards” that constituted their “value decks.” Another question to prompt discussion read, “Share an instance in which you’ve suffered from moral laryngitis or moral paralysis.” These trite exercises dumb down the level of conversation that should surround the topic.

Surely, moral courage—or at least moral dilemmas—permeate students’ everyday lives in a variety of ways, large and small, and constitute an important issue to discuss. For example, students occasionally must decide if they should intervene in a potential instance of sexual assault, use drugs like Adderall to enhance study performance or to call Emergency Medical Services for a friend who has had too much to drink. Moral courage may also factor into future outcomes, such as in choosing between various professional opportunities.

Together, these everyday calculations comprehensively shape the University’s ethical character. Thus, we need to take conversations about morality out of the setting of the three-course meal at the Hart House—limited to a self-selecting group of fifteen, who are already ostensibly interested in the issue of moral courage given their decision to apply—and into the arenas where these dilemmas actually occur.

To do this, the Honor Council should implement more relevant programming. Rather than talk in broad strokes about moral courage and promote their slogan­—YBTT, or “you’re better than that,”—the Honor Council should engage students on a respectable intellectual level about how to tackle real moral dilemmas. Otherwise, they waste their resources and endanger their legitimacy among the student body.

Several programs have successfully provided training on how to act in the face of moral uncertainty. The Prevent Act Challenge Teach program, run by the Women’s Center, trains students to combat sexual assault by ceasing bystander behavior. The Honor Council should seek partnerships with such initiatives in order to reverse the perception that it is out of touch.

But much of the onus for shifting the tone of these conversations falls on Brodhead and the administration as well. Indeed, this year administrators have demonstrated a notable lack of moral courage on several fronts. Brodhead and Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta have failed to offer decisive support for gender-neutral housing, leaving students who support the initiative to rightfully wonder whether administrators actually value their concerns. On the issue of Duke Kunshan University, they dodge questions about China’s limited academic freedom and human rights record.

The administration’s poor record on moral courage makes Brodhead’s avuncular approach to moral courage seem all the more grating to students. The problem is not that we are too cowardly to do the right thing, nor is it that we lack enough “moral cards” to do so. We need an Honor Council and administration that can strike a tone of mutual respect with students and identify the real arenas of moral dilemmas that students face everyday.