'The Organization Kid' responds: Analyzing The Atlantic article

Princetonians: The cream of the crop among young adults, and the leaders of tomorrow. Bright, morally earnest, industrious meritocrats whose self-control and perky conformism reflect the values of today's society as a whole.

In his article "The Organization Kid," published in the April issue of The Atlantic, David Brooks describes the "typical Princeton student," an impression he derives from interview sessions with students he notes are a few dozen, faculty-recommended, articulate leaders of tomorrow.

During his visit to Princeton, Brooks encountered clean-cut, cheerful scholars and citizens, respectful of their professors, too busy to involve themselves in national politics or social causes, too future-oriented for social life and too on-the-go to spark up intellectual conversations over a meal. Brooks dubs this sort of student "The Organization Kid."

Brooks observes that, as a result of a childhood of preening and protection, the organization kid takes seriously the values of good behavior, self-control and achievement, but has lost a sense of chivalry and of the tragic dimension in life of right and wrong, good and evil. As a result, he says, "In this world hardworking students achieve self-control; in [the past] one virtuous students achieved self-mastery."

Many Princetonians saw merit in Brooks' article, and many others disagreed with his assertions. Some, such as Dan Pastor '03, thought that Brooks' article did not allow for Princeton students to present a picture of themselves that might be contradictory to Brooks' notion of the "organization kid."

"I feel like David Brooks knew what he was going to say before he set foot on the Princeton campus," Pastor said, "so all the interactions that he had with students turned into gross oversimplifications. I don't feel like he gave Princeton a fair shot against his thesis."

Brooks' article prompted some students to reflect when they saw aspects of their own personalities accurately portrayed, but most agreed that the article was not a fair representation of Princeton students on the whole.

"I saw myself in this article," Lauren Teichner '03 said, "but I think I'm an exception to the rule here in how much I work. [Brooks] hit the nail on the head in a lot of ways, but he made it seem like it applied to everyone. I felt like his sample group was really limited."

Others, like Spence Miller '01, thought "The Organization Kid" accurately characterized some students at Princeton but were offended at the stereotypes offered. "I didn't feel like it applied to me," Miller said, "but on the whole, a lot of the stuff is an accurate representation. I was upset because it stereotyped everyone at Princeton."

According to some students, Brooks' article accurately represented deeper shortcomings on the part of general education policy.

"The University has abdicated any serious role in the moral or character formation that once came along with academic instruction," Matt O'Brien '03 said. "The traditional notion of in loco parentis, where the University acts in place of a parent, is no longer mentioned. The vague notions of diversity and tolerance seem to be the only virtues that count anymore. Indeed, virtues is even too strong a word. Chic relativism has watered down the vocabulary of morality; virtues have becomes values and everyday evil is a forgotten concept."

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

But students like Pastor said that they do not believe that a changing vocabulary is a cause or a result of a diminished sense of moral ideals.

"Just because we've stopped using religious terms like virtue and vice and replaced those terms with terms like ethics and values doesn't mean we've stopped talking about or being concerned with moral questions," Pastor said. "There's so much evidence on the Princeton campus that students are actively engaged in thinking about ethical and moral issues that he ignores."