college activism

Perhaps it's no surprise that a college professor might not know what motivates their students, politically. The course being taught might be mathematics, but if it's political science and democracy studies then you've got yourself some folks who claim that young people are "supportive, but in a bystander kind of way." That's Laura Katz Olson's quote in a recent AP story by Martha Irvine, 'Tough political realities quiet youth 'Obamamania'.

'Quiet' is an interesting choice in the title, and it echoes some of the sentiment captured in Olson's quote. What does she expect young people to do? Protest?! Some professors have made comments to me about the lack of protesting and other forms of general hell-raising. The short answer is that each generation uses different tools to affect social change. I'm grateful to the Boomers; Millennials are able to look for careers in matters of the heart and the earth because of them. Boomers demonstrated that you need to professionalize the cause and we think that is the way of the future, too.

Thankfully, some professors realize that human-beings need to fulfill basic needs (emphasis mine):

But to be fair, says political scientist Mike Wagner says, it's tough for young people — or any American, for that matter — to know how to get involved in issues with solutions that aren't always so clear-cut.

Volunteering for a candidate? Fairly easy to do. Helping solve some of the toughest issues to face our nation, from health care reform to a deep-seated financial crisis? Not so much.

"These aren't easy issues for young people. It's not 'Should we go to war in Iraq?' or 'Should gay marriage be legalized?'" says Wagner, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska.

He sees a lot of young people getting lost in the details, or bored by them. Or like a lot of us, they're more focused on their own worries, such as getting a job or paying off mountains of student loans.

It's true that the practical issues of volunteering for a candidate are relatively low, especially considering modern campaign techniques, but it is still a rare thing for the American citizenry to do. I don't see this as a fair metric since it doesn't translate perfectly to the governing side. The real test I see is in what the White House is calling citizen participation (I prefer 'civic participation', because citizens aren't the only ones living and contributing to the nation's success). For instance, reporters and pundits have lambasted youth for not getting more involved in the healthcare reform discussions. It turns out that many youth organizations have been calling for some kind of healthcare townhall with young people (live and online) with President Obama. Helping young people to better understand the changes will help ensure that reform is successful. In non-English speaking households, parents usually receive important information about schools and other government services from their bilingual children, so this reaches yet another population. The Obama presidential campaign made involvement a two-way street with young people, but in governing President Obama would do better by hosting a healthcare townhall instead of a speech. Today's youth want to get involved with government, to interact with it, and not just fight against it.

There's a great (and scary) article in The Nation today about how homeland security has invaded our higher education system and altered the face of political participation on campus through the use of "free speech" zones, tasers, hidden cameras and data mining techniques. It's pretty scare and well worth a read.

Two comments on this. First, this goes directly to what I've said in response to statements by Boomers like Al Gore and Thomas Freidman that young people today aren't political enough and aren't radical enough, and generally fail to live up to the legacy of the 60's. As this article thoroughly details, campuses are a very different place now than they were when Boomer were growing up, and the consequences of radical political action are MUCH higher. The Boomers have completely disincentivized the kinds of activism they use a a yardstick for measuring political action.

Second, government interference on campus isn't necessarily a new thing. When I was studying Russian in college, I heard many stories from my professors about how, at the height of the Cold War, the government had plants in graduate programs, keeping an eye out for potential "Reds." Also, let's not forget that the United States Student Association started out with funding from the CIA. What's different now is the degree of interference and the consequences brought down on students who fail to abide by new guidelines.