A few weeks ago, I blogged about an interview I had with the BBC about Occupy London and Occupy St. Paul’s Cathedral. Who’d have thought I’d now be blogging about Occupy in my own back yard?! Yes, my own back yard. What began as a protest at and against Wall Street, has spread globally, and has now appeared at Princeton University.
Photo: Princeton University, Office of Communications
I shouldn’t really be surprised. In recent decades, Princeton has sent large numbers of its graduates to jobs on Wall Street at the big name investment banks. Every fall, these banks make pilgrimages to Princeton to recruit a new cohort, where these coveted jobs are highly sought after by many of Princeton’s brightest engineering, math, computer science, econ, and other majors. According to the most recent graduate survey from Princeton’s Career Services, financial services was the largest full-time employer of Princeton graduates.
This otherwise quiet and happy mating ritual had a surprise interruption this month. At two recent recruiting events, one by JPMorgan Chase and another by Goldman Sachs, members of Occupy Princeton attended these events, disguised in full business attire as if they were eager applicants. They dispersed themselves and sat in different parts of the room. During the Q&A session at the end of the recruiting pitch, the Occupy Princeton students sprung their surprise on the startled recruiters and fellow students. They began a call-and-response type speech, starting with Occupy’s trademark “mic check,” and lambasted the banks for their role in recent financial crises. At the Goldman Sachs recruiting event, there was an interesting twist in that after critiquing Goldman Sachs, they went on to challenge their fellow classmates:
“Dear Fellow Princeton Students, we are here to ask you for a moment of reflection. Deciding on a future career path is difficult. It deserves serious introspection. When you came to Princeton as a wide-eyed freshman, you probably didn’t dream of working at Goldman Sachs. What happened? We are all privileged to have made it to Princeton. However, our talents will be wasted if we send all our best and brightest to Wall Street.“
Princeton’s motto is “In the nation’s service and service to all nations.” Some, like the members of Occupy
Photo: Princeton University, Office of Communications
Princeton, would argue that sending such a large number of students to these lucrative Wall Street positions violates that motto.
Is it wrong that our “best and brightest” go to Wall Street? Or is any position or company ”redeemable,” and with the capacity to be in the nation’s service and service to all nations ? What do you think? Please give us your comments below. Thank you!
David, thanks for your Blog. I have not been sure what the key message is from Occupy Wall Streeters until now.
It seems they are asking for refection and to seriously consider how someone invests their life! That is a noble idea!
I do think their message has other motives regarding how wealth is produced and distributed that have a darker theme.
What do you think?
Any and every business/career that is lawful is also, necessarily, in service to others and of “redeeming value”. “Wall Street” fundamentally makes much-needed capital available to various organizations in order to grow, employ people, provide livelihoods to families and products/services to customers. It is as essential that these companies (including “Wall Street”) earn “profit” as it is for any human to breathe. Arguably, the excessive pursuit of profit (a/k/a greed) by “Wall Street” contributed to our financial crisis (substantially enabled, I would argue, by our federal government). But “greed” and it’s cousin, “envy”, are spiritual issues with which each of us must struggle no matter the “street” we choose for our work.
I would encourage every student who has talent, ability and gifts that can be employed on “Wall Street” to pursue those careers with passion and a commitment to maintaining personal integrity in all that they do. Tune out the critics — they will soon pass.
Hmm…Rick, do you think that whatever is lawful is also moral? Do we derive our morals and ethics from the law or the other way around? There are cases when the law falls behind our morals; extreme cases include slavery, which was legal for many centuries, or many of the laws from Nazi Germany regarding treatment of Jews. Also, I don’t know if what is permissible necessarily makes it in the service of others. While something can in a way serve others, for example, making expensive sneakers, would that value not be outweighed if the means of production were particularly nefarious such as abusive labor practices (don’t want to accuse the shoe industry of anything, just using this as a hypothetical to make a point)?
Good points, David. I was couching my comments in modern-day USA where, yes, legal history demonstrates that our laws and regulations spring from our morals and social mores. And yes, I strongly believe there is inherent ‘service” provided by any business that provides jobs, serves customers and creates wealth. However, I strongly agree that, within the framework of our legal system, we all must make moral and ethical decisions about what we do and how we do it.
Dave:
Another provocative blog from an usually non-provacative guy! Well done!
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wisely said the line between good and evil does not run between countries or political parties but through the heart of every man and woman. He could have added firms and industries, such as Goldman and Wall Street. There is little question the culture at Goldman, and the Street in general, got too intoxicated as the Fed and Congress spiked the punch with easy money and expansionary fiscal policies rather than hide the bowl as the party started to get out of hand. And of course, academia shares some responsiblity, as does the typical American who just knew housing prices never go down. Seems we were all indeed created a little lower than the angels.
[...] A few weeks ago, I blogged about an interview I had with the BBC about Occupy London and Occupy St. Paul’s Cathedral. Occupy… Princeton? « ——The Avodah Institute's —– Faith & Work Blog [...]
The “rich young ruler”, the servant/workers who were given “talents” by their employer/master, and many other Biblical examples provide us with answers and insights as to what God’s plan for people is…….be productive so that you may give and serve others along the way of your life journey. This means in work, in your community where you live and work, and in the global environment in which we all live today.
Use your talents for His tasks in following His example that He came to serve and not be served.
Professor Miller, you old socratic wizard — great discussion. My question springs from a rather naive perspective, as I don’t know anything about the college-loan-debt incurred by a typical Princeton student. I wonder: To what degree does someone’s debt load at graduation influence her/his response to the question of mission? I.e., does the escalating cost of education (and the ability to repay it) dictate in practical terms a student’s career path? The Occupiers would answer, “It shouldn’t,” and I would applaud them. Yet the issue of debt carries its own moral and spiritual concerns (for the institutional lender as well as the borrower). Not that a Wall Street job is the only option for repaying six-figure loans, of course…but my heart does go out to any debt-laden Princeton student whose vision for “service to nation(s)” promises only low wages — and the soul-deadening burden of lifelong debt.
Should have done my research ahead of time, of course. As most people posting here would know, Princeton carries the lowest average student debt (only 26 percent of students, at less than $5,000 each). Glad to know the endowment is working in service to the motto — and on behalf of students, who can answer the mission question with clear purpose!
What troubles me deeply is that college students, particularly at elite institutions, generally are not sympathetic to the plight of unborn children “terminated” by abortions. Indeed, there is no “occupy Planned Parenthood” movement, even though young people themselves are abortion survivors. Moreover, students do not mourn the members of their generation who they never had the opportunity to love. The vast majority simply parrot their professors, accepting abortion as a “constitutional” right or as a “human right” for women. Campuses should be hotbeds of protest against the state-sponsored slaughter of millions of innocent, “inconvenient” unborn humans (and their potential descendants). University students should be leading massive, non-violent civil disobedience against the racist (check out, for example, the percentage of unborn African Americans who are “terminated”) abortion industry that is eugenics in sheep’s clothing and which has robbed our nation of the rich potential of millions of people. The unborn can’t speak, vote, or buy things. They are killed behind closed doors using our high technology. Their mothers, at vulnerable times of their lives, are enticed to give up on themselves and to solve their problems by violence. I am pleading for our society’s “sacrificial victims,” hoping that some compassionate Princeton student will devote her/his life to becoming a roaring lion for the unborn.