The trust deficit

Ask a room full of people what they think when they hear the word “deficit” and the words “economy,” “government spending” or “taxes” may quickly come to mind. In a post-recession world, the phrase “deficit crisis” has become synonymous with government dysfunction, even used as a rallying call to criticize government largesse. However, Washington, D.C., may not be the only source of concern.

Last week, Harvard faced public scrutiny when it was revealed that school administrators secretly photographed students without their permission. In a study to monitor attendance, administrators had installed cameras in several lecture halls, without informing either the professors or students. The study caused anuproar on campus, sparking a debate over the potential violation of student privacy. Yet, in doing so, the controversy also struck at the heart of a more fundamental issue: the trust deficit.

Trust is an essential part of society. From the emotional support of friendship to the enhanced bargaining power of collective unions, trust allows us to build relationships to accomplish things that would otherwise be impossible to do on our own. Trust even has an economic rationale. When we can trust others, fewer resources need to be dedicated to monitor compliance, reducing transaction costs and making exchanges more frequent and fluid. Trust truly benefits everyone. However, throughout our lives, our generation has grown to be more and more pessimistic about many sources of authority, whether they are political, educational or social.

As the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche succinctly put it, “I"m not upset that you lied to me, I"m upset that from now on I can"t believe you.” While trust opens many doors, it takes little to lock them forever. Trust is built upon one’s ability to rely on another, violating that trust inherently impedes that ability, poisoning the well. Unlike a broken object, trust is not something that can be repaired or replaced. But trust is not always black and white. There is no rulebook dictating what is and isn’t trustworthy (although it’s probably not a good sign if you’re trying to find one). It may not always be clear to both sides that trust has been broken.

However, rules are different. We are pretty good at following them to a tee and knowing when they are and aren’t broken. After all, in a technical sense, Harvard committed no wrong. They clearly checked to see no rules were broken in their process of monitoring, even having the school’s institutional board approve the study. The University’s intentions, albeit misplaced, were clearly not malicious. But that’s the problem. Harvard never broke any rules, yet this abuse in trust still occurred. And therein lies the rub.

In the past decade our fundamental relationships with major institutions and sources of authority in our lives have slowly been whittled away. From governmental abuse through the National Security Agency program, to Facebook’s subliminal psychological study, no rules were ever broken. It may be naïve and idealistic to hope that no institution would ever abuse our trust, but schools, out of all institutions, have a primary obligation to protect that trust-based relationship.

Schools have a premier role in our society. Through education, we are able to gain the knowledge and skills to be productive members of society. This relationship is entirely built upon trust, both in the practical sense of being able to rely online casino on the administration for any problems that may arise and on a more theoretical level of being able to trust someone else to instill us with the right lessons and information. If we are not able to trust those in charge of educating us, it defeats the purpose of education entirely.

Granted, there is an argument to be made that trust, in the case of Harvard, was violated for a greater good. After all, the data gathered would allow professors to learn more about how to raise or maintain attendance, allowing more students to be able to benefit from the experience of learning from top-quality professors. However, this short-term positive goal benefits Harvard only through the sacrifice of a longer-term relationship.

It may be this deep-rooted mistrust that has led to the deep apathy that many in our generation feel today towards most sources of authority. The implications of this are vast. If we don’t care about our education, our politicians or our society as a whole because we do not have faith in those in charge to change it, then we only allow these things to worsen and for them to further abuse our trust.

I’m not advocating for some strict authoritarian law to mandate only trust-preserving practices in order to fix this lack of trust. (Ironically, forcing someone to be “trustworthy” would probably prevent you from trusting them to begin with.) However, I think that leaders, across all spectra and areas, must realize that their actions have consequences. Even if an action isn’t illegal or against the rules, it can still break trust. Acknowledging this would go a long way to resolving the trust deficit.

Ben Dinovelli is a Wilson School major from Mystic, Conn. He can bereached at bjd5@princeton.edu.