A woman objects to her adult college student daughter's choice to live in a "gender neutral" dorm room. Actually, she seems to object to Stanford's policies (the college in question) in not keeping her informed of the situation. She claims it's just "transparency," but I disagree. The dispute happened to make it into the National Review, thus "inviting" the whole damn world to weigh in on this disagreement. So I will.
Some of the comments are along the lines of "whomever pays 'the freight' gets to make the rules," and the daughter should respect her mother's wishes. Others suggest the mother should respect her daughter's choices. In fact, the mother has refused to pay the tuition for the spring term in protest of the whole event. So, the girl's parents have exercised their rights. In response, the girl has taken out a loan to cover the lost financial assistance.
I am not a parent, but I've been a son. Still am, I guess, but I was once (or twice) told that if I wanted to live under my parents' roof I had to live by their rules. OK, that sounded reasonable, so I moved out. I don't remember what I was doing (or not doing) that upset them so much, but I'm not sure it matters. I didn't like being given such an ultimatum, so I made a decision. Perhaps that's what they wanted me to do, but I was in college at the time, so it seemed a little unfair to place the additional burden on me. But then, they were the boss, and what the boss says goes.
Valuable lesson, I guess, but I don't think I learned what they wanted me to learn. Of course, I don't know what they wanted me to learn, so ... what it taught me is that everyone tends to act in their own best interests, even when they're telling you they're acting in yours. Only you can say what's good for you, but you will nonetheless experience endless bombardment from others telling you that they know what's best for you. Oh, and this doesn't stop once you're an adult, either. Of course, once you get past a certain age, you can just look at them and blink blankly, then smile and walk away. If you're young, you have to stand there and take it.
The school owes no explanation to the parents. This is true for one very simple reason: the student is an adult. I would agree that the school owes certain "transparency" in the case of a minor student, but once the student is 18 (or 21--whatever) that contract expires. It doesn't matter who is paying for what--the deal is between the provider and the beneficiary. The school, though it receives the funds, is not the direct beneficiary, the student is. Though the school may provide additional assistance when dealing with multiple sources of tuition (such as billing the parents directly, etc.) it owes no special treatment.
So, this issue is purely between the daughter and the parents--or parent, as the case may be. Of course the girl's mother is fully justified in withdrawing her financial support. Can't argue with that. It always was voluntary. You don't owe your children squat. Well, some might argue with that, because as parents you sort of have an obligation to provide for your children. That is, until they become adults and you can terminate the obligation.
So, should the parents' cultural differences be enforced on the child in this manner? They're treating her like a disobedient child. She may be irresponsible and childish (the child), but she is clearly an adult. They should treat her like an adult. So ... I would argue that if there are/were conditions on their periodic gifts of tuition assistance, then those should have been made transparently aware at the time they were initially offered. I don't know that they weren't, so I won't debate this. But like everything, the door of transparency swings both ways. But let's assume it wasn't made clear, because if it had been, the disagreement would have taken on a somewhat different tone. If the daughter broke the contract, then the breaking of the agreement becomes the issue. And it's a legitimate issue, as well.
But, the issue has become that the mother doesn't like the co-ed dorm arrangement, and is expressing her displeasure by withdrawing her support. Her daughter has a different cultural viewpoint. One might say she has a more "modern" perspective. Certainly she feels competent to handle herself in a dorm room where there might be guys. While this wouldn't have happened when I went to school, I don't see a problem. Things have changed.
So, it comes down to the conservative mother's objection to her more liberal daughter's "choice" of lifestyle. Methinks there are myriad ways they don't get along, and this is just the latest manifestation of that dispute. Frankly, I'm surprised the financial arrangement has lasted as long as it has. I mean, surely the girl's mother has known of her daughter's liberal leanings, right? Why choose to enforce them, now? What's the lesson she wants to impart, now, one term away from graduation?
It's an immature hissy fit, plain and simple. She's taking the money away for no other reason than because she can, and completely overlooking the bigger picture. You love someone? Then decide if you're in for the long haul, or not. If not, then the faster you get the hell out, the better. If you're in, then don't put limits on what that love entails. There are legitimate reasons for discontinuing financial support, but an objection to what is a very temporary and not-dangerous situation is not one of them. Of course I may have oversimplified, but that's my opinion.
It's all about control, and the distinctly bad feeling you get once you realize you've lost it. Once again, I'd have to wonder how they got to this point without this having happened. But I do remember I was about 21 or 22 when I "got the message." If this child is the oldest (and I believe she is) then this has been a learning experience for everyone. It's just a shame that the parents weren't able to prove that they were the bigger people by biting back their disappointment and addressing this disagreement in some other, less disruptive manner. That the National Review picked this up--well, this is just fodder for their whole "the liberals are destroying our country" diatribe. It sells magazines, and the "red staters" want to hear about it.
But blame the parents. They are the ones that raised their daughter to be an independent thinker with the ability and the inclination to make her own decisions. If they'd wanted a little conservative automaton, they should have made sure that's what they were teaching her to be. But they wanted their daughter to think for herself. So now, who's to blame when she does?
They should be proud.
Labels: news, rants
