Virginia Postrel, who is my favorite American columnist among those who haven’t either co-authored books with me or employed me at some point in my adult life, has a column prompted by Harvard College’s new “kindness pledge” that addresses a number of themes that extend well beyond undergraduate education:

Harvard surely has its jerks, but most students aren’t especially unkind — at least to each other.
There have, however, been what [dean of freshman Tom] Dingman vaguely describes as “instances where the janitorial staff and the staff in the dining hall have been treated with disrespect.” Since at least a few students don’t instinctively regard the staff as social equals worthy of basic courtesy and professional respect, everyone now gets a reminder not to abuse the help.
Meanwhile, to their peers, Harvard students may, if anything, be a little too nice. Some veteran faculty members tell me that the students’ drive to succeed manifests itself in a surprising way. A social norm has emerged, they report, in which students avoid saying anything that might make others look bad in class, even if that restraint means stifling discussion.
“I note in the current generation of undergraduates a tendency to hold back on disagreement or criticism of other students in class,” says Jeffry Frieden, a political scientist. “They’re much more respectful of each other — much more than when I was an undergraduate. If someone states an opinion, even if absurd, they take it in stride.”
A humanities professor says, “You can’t get them to argue easily. They’re wary of that. They know the game that you’re playing with them, whereas 20 years ago they loved to play the game.” Instead of lively byplay driven by engagement with ideas, this professor says, the students have an unwritten code of: “If you give me space to impress the teacher, I’ll give you space to impress the teacher.”

As Postrel explains, the notion that kindness as such is a public virtue is bunk:

True, our public discussions could surely benefit from more fair-minded Greg Mankiws (regardless of political persuasion) and fewer vicious Paul Krugmans (ditto). But a kindness pledge won’t get us there. And the anti-criticism norm that prevails in other Harvard classrooms points to the problem of equating kindness with civility or fairness.
Kindness isn’t a public or intellectual virtue, but a personal one. It is a form of love. Kindness seeks, above all, to avoid hurt. Criticism — even objective, impersonal, well- intended, constructive criticism — isn’t kind. Criticism hurts people’s feelings, and it hurts most when the recipient realizes it’s accurate. Treating “kindness” as the way to civil discourse doesn’t show students how to argue with accuracy and respect. It teaches them instead to neither give criticism nor tolerate it.

I found Postrel’s conclusion devastating:

Harvard is the strongest brand in American higher education, and its identity is clear. As its students recognize, Harvard represents success. But, it seems, Harvard feels guilty about that identity and wishes it could instead (or also) represent “compassion.” These two qualities have a lot in common. They both depend on other people, either to validate success or serve as objects of compassion. And neither is intellectual.

One hopes that Postrel will at least consider writing a book on these themes.