Editorial Columns

Is Campus Activism Dead--or Just Misguided?

With the average age of college and university presidents a hair above 60 years old, a large portion of today’s campus leaders were undergraduate or graduate students during those heightened years of protest in the 1960s and early 1970s.    

            As a student during those protest-laden times, I spoke out about peace, the Vietnam War, civil rights, and the status of women. Yet today, as a university president, I am generally disheartened at the nature of activism on campus. 

            Did something happen to me when I hit 30?  Did I change when I went over to the Dark Side?  Or is there good reason to be disappointed with the state of activism today?

Don’t get me wrong.  The last thing I need as president is to contend with more protests.  Yet I’ve always felt there was something healthy about activism when well-informed, constructive and aimed in the right direction.

 I like to think I know a little bit about college students, but I’m often reminded of Mark Twain’s words, “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

As one who vividly recalls anti-war marches, the Kent State shootings, protests against apartheid, and the demand for civil rights, I marvel on the one hand at the silence of today’s young people on major issues and on the other hand at the inadequate understanding of the fundamentals of the issues that some students choose for protest.

For example, few of today’s college students have protested the Iraq War.  One wonders if many of them are paying much attention.  In a recent Pew survey, only 24 percent of adults ages 18-29 could come close to identifying correctly the level of troop deaths in Iraq. I suppose this shouldn’t be a surprise.  After all, according to a Newsweek study last year, more Americans were able to name Jordin Sparks as the winner of the American Idol competition than could identify John Roberts as the Supreme Court’s chief justice. 

There have been some rumblings of student attention to one of the major issues of our time--global warming--but one might expect that since energy and the environment is a key topic around the presidential election, and many media outlets are interviewing every Jason, Ashley, and Jennifer to discuss the topic.

            My recollection of the 1960s and 1970s was that fewer students protested than most have nostalgically conjured, and some of those who participated in protests were not well informed about the nuances of the causes at hand, even while displaying passionate feelings about them.  But the most active students, those who were leaders, were generally rather well-versed about the issues.  I don’t see that level of engagement today.  

            Students have occupied administration buildings at Penn State and elsewhere, willing to be arrested if their presidents didn’t adopt the “Designated Suppliers Program,” an evolving concept developed by the Worker Rights Consortium. Students insist the program is up and running, but in reality it does not yet exist.  Didn’t they check? Most students look at me blankly when I try to engage them in a discussion about anti-trust concerns or other topics relevant to the compelling but complex juncture of manufacturing, international trade, unionization and exploitation.   

It would be tempting to blame this state of affairs on whatever letter of the alphabet we are now using to describe the current generation of 18- to 22-year-olds. Or we could blame the Internet.  After all, the Facebook group “No, I don’t care if I die at 12 a.m., I refuse to pass on your chain letter” at last count had 673,278 members, almost three times the number of students in the “Amnesty International: Support & Defend Human Rights Worldwide” group. Even the “Lazy College Students of America” group attracted more than twice the members of the “United Students Against Sweatshops.” Who knew that lazy college students needed a support group?        

One characteristic of student activism in 2008 is that there are myriad causes that capture the attention of just a handful of students.  For instance, there is a small group at some universities that feels they should be permitted to carry guns on campus. Their national organization, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, has orchestrated a number of letter writing campaigns and protests that involve wearing an empty holster to classes. At Penn State, these protests have gone virtually unnoticed by other students, or if anything, caused derision among others in the student body. For those who were marching for freedom 40 years ago, it is undoubtedly difficult to muster a lot of emotion for causes like the empty holster campaign.

What do we make of this new generation of activism?

Obviously, the political landscape has changed, technology has changed, and students themselves have changed. Today’s students have no worries about being drafted and they need not think about the privilege of voting--an issue that was resolved for 18 year olds in 1971 when the 26^th amendment was certified. Today, students feel more empowered than ever. They have other priorities as well.

In a sampling of those born between 1976 and 2000, the Pew Research Center found that 81 percent of respondents cited getting rich as their priority in life and 51 percent named fame as a top goal. Only 30 percent in the poll expressed a desire to help people in need, while 22 percent said they aspire to be community leaders. Compare that to the results of a survey of college freshmen in 1967: nearly 86 percent said that “a meaningful philosophy of life” was their principal goal, while 41 percent cited being “well off financially” as their purpose in life.

One result of this shift has been that more of today’s students are pursuing degrees in professions that appear lucrative or glamorous: business, finance, public relations, or broadcasting, for example. There has been a slow but steady decline in liberal arts majors.

At the same time, there is something very good happening, notably an upswing in volunteerism. A survey done by the Higher Education Research Institute found that about 83 percent of college freshmen had volunteered in their senior year of high school, up from 66 percent in 1989. This experience has carried forward to college and has resulted in a proliferation of campus groups with a goal of serving others.

At Penn State, students have built houses for Habitat for Humanity, Hurricane Katrina victims, and American Indian reservations. They are recycling, working to develop renewable resources, tutoring disadvantaged children, planting urban gardens and providing medical aid to impoverished people in third world countries.

The trend continues after graduation as well. Applications are up 36 percent at Teach for America, and the Peace Corps has seen a 16 percent increase in applications. Other service organizations count similar increases. Although some may write off today’s post-graduate volunteerism as a reflection of a weak job market, I am among those who see it as a continuation of the habit of community service that students developed as teens.

Without a doubt, there has been a change in the expression of student activism.  Some might express disdain for what they perceive as boutique activism, namely activism involving small numbers of students, often without extensive knowledge of the background of the cause.

At the same time, Lazy College Students of America aside, today’s students seem more likely to try to change the world through their volunteer efforts. Most students who are serious about a cause rarely take to the streets or chant at the doors of the administration building. While we see fewer marches and angry fists pumping the air, many students are still making a difference, and that is something worth shouting about.