On February 23, the Objectivists of Stanford hosted a lecture given by Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Yaron Brook. Dr. Brook is an advocate of Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s moral and political philosophy that values rational self-interest, laissez-faire capitalism, and individualism.
In his lecture, Dr. Brook argued that no individual should be legally compelled to provide for his or her neighbor. He focused on healthcare, arguing that current government healthcare systems violate one’s natural rights.
“Healthcare is not a right,” Brook argued. He said that healthcare requires money, doctors, and facilities, and therefore cannot be compared with the freedoms of speech or assembly.
Objectivism as a philosophy has grown more popular in recent years, due to both popular backlash against large government initiatives and the rise of the Tea Party. The Tea Party espouses many of the principles for which the Ayn Rand Institute has advocated since its founding in 1985.
The Ayn Rand Institute has actively tried to attract Objectivists on college campuses across the United States. In recent years, it has spent over five million dollars promoting and subsidizing Objectivist clubs and awarding scholarships across the country.
The Review sat down with Dr. Brook to talk about the status of Objectivism on college campuses. He regularly speaks at universities across the country, and offered us his commentary regarding campus activism.
“I think [college Objectivist organizations] vary dramatically, both in activism and in size,” he said. “Generally, I’d like to see the clubs become more active and try to engage with the student population more—try to create a little controversy, and challenge the status quo on college campuses to attract more attention to the ideas…in a respectful and energized way.”
At colleges and universities nation-wide, Objectivism and other right-wing political ideologies are often eclipsed by predominately left-wing culture and political ideologies.
When asked whether or not college campuses tend to be poor incubators for Objectivism, Dr. Brook responded, “It’s a mixture. On one hand, they’re bad incubators because you’re going up against an educational culture that’s very antagonistic towards Objectivism on every level. But on the other hand, it’s very friendly because [there are] a bunch of young people all trying to figure out their views about the world.”
He continued, “If you’re focused on the students, it’s very hospitable; if you’re focused on the faculty, it’s very hostile.”
Objectivism is often attacked for its promotion of “moral selfishness” and for its severe criticism of altruism. The philosophy defines morality in terms of acting to improve one’s own life, not the lives of others.
In this way, Objectivism may be at odds with Stanford’s Fundamental Standard, which reads, “Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.”
Ayn Rand, on the other hand, stated that “own happiness [is] the moral purpose of his life.”
Dr. Brook commented upon the discrepancy. “It all depends on how you define order, how you define morality,” he said. “You can certainly define them within an Objectivist context, in which it’s not an issue, but if [Stanford] defines morality in terms of selflessness, in terms of self-sacrifice, then, yeah, it’s incompatible.”
Dr. Brook commented that objectivism is not necessarily popular on all college campuses. And he thought the relationship between Stanford’s Fundamental Standard and Objectivist philosophy is “antagonist in intent, at least [with regards to] morality, and Stanford is a private organization, so they can have whatever standard they want,” he said.
While Stanford allows political groups of all sorts to organize on its campus–the Stanford Conservative Society, the Stanford Democrats, the Grand Left Coalition–one is left to wonder if organizations such as the Objectivists of Stanford “fit in” in Stanford’s dynamic political environment.
Ayn Rand believed that “man [is] a heroic being…with productive achievement his noblest activity….” Objectivists tend to be professionals, not academics. The Review asked Dr. Brook if the intellectual and ideological divide between academia and business turn Objectivists toward business and away from academia.
“There’s a pre-selection of who goes into academia, and academia selects itself through the tenure process,” he said. “It’s self-reinforcing so that the type of people who go into academia don’t appreciate productive work. They’re very insulated, very detached from reality and the real economy that makes their jobs possible.”
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Dr. Brook is brilliant and the objectivist philosophy is quickly growing on me. The more I learn about it the more it just clicks with me many of these thoughts I had for years but thought they were wrong because it was selfish or immoral. The truth will set you free!!
There is absolutely no contradiction between the Stanford Fundamental Standard and Objectivist philosophy. By “moral,” Stanford doesn’t mean you should sacrifice yourself to others. Would they say you’ve violated the Standard if you don’t give away your money to another student who doesn’t have tuition money? Of course not. When “moral” is used in such a general context, it normally implies a negative (“do not do this to others”) standard rather than a positive (“do this for others”) standard of morality: i.e don’t steal from others, don’t bully others, don’t fight, etc “as is DEMANDED of good citizens.”
Dr. Brook notes that campus clubs vary dramatically in terms of size and activeness.
On medical school campuses they are essentially nonexistent. Some individual med students read about free markets and individual rights, but that is done independently, not in an organized fashion. Perhaps that will someday change, too.
One can agree with Yaron Brook that no one should be legally compelled to provide for his neighbor, without swallowing everything put out by his “Ayn Rand Institute” — which be it noted was founded after Ayn Rand’s death.
It wasn’t long ago that Brook said that the expense of the Iraq War (and by implication the expense of the other Middle East wars) were not a cause of the U.S.’s economic decline.
And that was not long after the Ayn Rand Institute had unstintingly promoted the Iraq War, right up until the day they got it. See “Relentless Propaganda” at
http://ARIwatch.com/RelentlessPropaganda.htm
Another problem with ARI is that they confine themselves to fighting — when they do fight it — legalized government corruption, and totally ignore gangster-like corruption such as described by former federal agent Rodney Stich.
The books that ARI donates to schools are a fine thing wrapped in questionable material: ARI’s website address is on the back cover of every one. Much of what they say is true, but we’d rather hear it from a source that really means it.
Well, it is interesting to note that most people who either consider themselves Objectivists or hold convictions that match those of Objectivists’ are not the sort to organize themselves, precisely because of those ideals. They’re more concerned with the betterment of their own lives, primarily. I believe Ms. Rand herself described them as “the sort who lead active private lives, and do not get involved in public issues”. Makes you wonder, if the entire world was composed of individuals trying to better themselves, and not attempting to force their own idea of what is good for others down each others throats, what it’d be like.
Mark- the Ayn Rand institute is not ‘his’ and it was not founded by him. It is a non profit ORGANIZATION. Dr. Brook just leads the outfit.
Also you would need to provide proof and reasons for disagreeing with ARI on the Iraq war issue.
The objectivist philopshy has a complete system of morality. They don’t talk about the gangsters 1. they are not the biggest threat to liberty. 2. they are private criminals while the government is the real threat to everyone.
You should really try to understand the philosophy more, buddy. oh and the fact that they advertise themselves on their own material and want to get the message out because they think they have the answers to peoples questions is a bad thing…get real buddy.
I don’t actually perceive someone as tenured in acadimeal as a individual -the auspices of natural autonomy as one who is lacking in making an effort or a contribution to social stuff. (not social cubism)
IF we spoke of a circle with ayn Rand and Objectivism, we would parse the ideas to make meaning to principles as we perceive sour identities and experiences within the framework of negative and positive attributes in behaviour. I think chemically and genetically, Dawkins says we humans are not so distinct from our cousins in metaphors, meaning living things contrasted to inanimate things.
Naturally government corruption is not perpetrated by private criminals.
Even if philosophical ideas are more important in the long view, government corruption causes a significant loss in our freedom. The books of Rodney Stich, a former federal agent (FAA) turned whistleblower, are a great place to start learning just how bad it is. For references to his work see http://ARIwatch.com/Links.htm#RodneyStich
Anyone who has Internet access has access to proof that the Iraq War was not in America’s interest. There was plenty of proof before the invasion, and the Ayn Rand Institute willfully ignored it.
The Ayn Rand Institute, of which Yaron Brook is the President and Executive Director, claims to promote Objectivism yet in many important areas they promote Statism.