Summary of Key Points
This article discusses the controversy surrounding the closure of university campuses after the pandemic: while most universities remain closed, the opening of a few has sparked intense opposition from students (who complain about occupied dining halls and disrupted studies), revealing a tendency among them to treat public resources of public universities as private property. This situation persists due to three types of concessions made by ordinary citizens—weak awareness of their rights, a focus on the greater good, and a perceived sanctity around university students. However, as citizens' consciousness awakens, they are beginning to question why resources funded by them should be restricted to a few. The article argues that a balanced sense of self-interest (in protecting one's own rights) is key to returning public resources to their intended use. The issue of opening campuses can be resolved through proper management, rather than allowing a minority to monopolize them.
1. Students' Opposition to Opening Campuses: Treating Public Resources as Their Own "Backyard"
Many students oppose the opening of campuses with seemingly legitimate reasons such as "tourists disturbing studies," "increased food prices," and "safety concerns." But beneath these, the core logic is a refusal to allow anything that might affect their current benefits. They proudly claim, "This is our university," yet they overlook a fundamental fact: tuition at public universities accounts for only about 10% of operating costs, with the remaining 90% coming from all taxpayers (including their parents). The land on which the campuses are built is provided by the state for free, and the buildings and facilities are funded by public money; teachers' salaries are also paid by taxpayers. Both legally and morally, every citizen has a right to use these resources reasonably. However, students treat them as private property, even resorting to online criticism for waiting just 5 minutes longer in line—a manifestation of "refined self-interest," which prioritizes their own convenience over the public nature of these facilities.
2. Citizens' Three Types of Concessions: Creating Those Who Monopolize Resources
Students are able to monopolize resources not because they are stronger, but because citizens are too accommodating. This concession stems from three factors:
1. Weak Awareness of Rights: While students may protest if waiting in line for the dining hall causes inconvenience, residents living near universities often endure long detours (due to closed gates) without complaint, sometimes even accepting that "universities are not meant for them."
2. Overemphasis on the Greater Good: Citizens are taught from a young age to sacrifice personal convenience for the greater good, viewing universities as places for nurturing future leaders and considering their own inconvenience as a small sacrifice, with the belief that students will contribute to society after graduation.
3. A Sacred Image of University Students: For years, university students have been seen as "children of heaven," respected for their education and ideals, leading citizens to tolerate their behavior, even if it comes at their own cost.
3. The Shattering of the "Ivory Tower" Myth: Citizens No Longer Indulge Students
In recent years, there has been an increase in negative news about universities—academic misconduct, mentorial abuse, bureaucracy, and corruption. Citizens are gradually realizing that universities are not sacred places, and not all students become valuable members of society. They are also disappointed to find that the students they funded often turn out to be ordinary employees or even those they once dismissed as "unproductive members of society." This has led to a change in attitude: why should resources built with their money be limited to a few? Why should they sacrifice their convenience for the sake of people who look down on them?
4. A Balanced Sense of Self-Interest Is the Way Forward: Making Public Resources Truly Public
The article argues that "refined self-interest" is not necessarily negative—a reasonable and well-defined sense of self-interest is a cornerstone of modern society. The issue with closed campuses lies in an imbalance of power: students organize to protect their own interests, while citizens remain disinterested and give up their rights. Now that citizens are starting to fight for their rights (as seen with the opening of Wuhan University under public pressure), this is a positive development. The problem can be solved through practical solutions, such as dividing dining halls into student and tourist areas, scheduling library visits differently (with priority for students), and enhancing security measures. The real challenge lies in addressing the selfish desires of those who want to monopolize resources.
When citizens learn to protect their rights, the "refined self-interest" of students will lose its footing. Only then will universities truly become a spiritual home for all, not just a private space for a few.
Conclusion
The main message of this article is that public resources should not be monopolized by a minority. The "refined self-interest" of students is a result of citizens' excessive concessions. Only when everyone learns to reasonably protect their rights can public resources return to their intended purpose, and universities truly become open spaces for all. The aim is not to criticize students but to highlight the public nature of these resources and promote a more equitable distribution of them.