College Students

On October 30, Gavin Newsom ended his campaign for Governor of California and the left thousands of students across the Golden State wondering what's next? Will the large student base that he successfully mobilized fizzle out or take on a new cause?

From the very beginning, the Newsom campaign recognized the importance of turning out the youth vote in California. They worked closely with student organizers to create what arguably became the largest grassroots student movement ever marshalled by a Gubernatorial campaign. By the time the campaign ended, Students for Gavin Newsom (SFGN) had active chapters at 36 colleges and 35 high schools across the state. The SFGN leaders were in constant contact with the Newsom campaign and coordinated dozens of events for the mayor on college campuses. For many students, SFGN was their first involvement in the political process. Now this powerful student engine has ground to a halt.

Last fall, Students for Barack Obama faced a similar situation. After helping win the historic Presidential campaign in November, SFBO was left without a clearly defined mission. At the time, I served as State Field Coordinator for California Students for Barack Obama. In lieu of any direction from the national SFBO team we disbanded and left the decision of what to do with our chapters up to the chapters themselves. Many of them merged with existing College Dems clubs on their campuses, some eventually went on to form SFGN chapters, and many others disbanded completely. In retrospect, I wish we had had some way of integrating our SFBO chapters with OFA to continue advocacy for Obama's agenda. OFA eventually did reach out to us in the spring, but by that point all of our chapters had moved on.

The main difference between what SFBO faced last year and what SFGN faces now is the perception that the "job is done." After electing Obama, many students felt they had accomplished their goal. The same can't be said for Newsom's decision to drop out. Many students joined SFGN because of the Newsom campaign's message of reforming California, and that goal now seems further from being attained than ever. It's precisely for this reason that it is so important that SFGN continue is some form. The ideas that Newsom advocated for (investing in higher education, changing the state constitution, repealing the 2/3rds budget rule, creating green jobs, and expanding health care) are all still major challenges facing California. Any and all of these issues are worth fighting for. I hope the students who were engaged by this campaign realize the potential they have and continue the movement to change California.

There's a good piece this week that I saw shared on the Demos Fan Page - if you're not a fan of demos you totally should be. It shares the story of a women in her 40's that chose to go back to school to be a nurse after years of being a translator for film and television in CA.

She described the procedure of being accepted to an institution, being told one thing about her education, being rushed through the financial aid process with advisers telling her "oh don't worry we'll make sure you're taken care of," and ultimately ending up with no training, a low income job, and tons of debt primarily from private lenders with double didgit interest rates. Welcome to our world.

Its a similar story that young people all over the country are facing. Many many a time I sat in a cubical sobbing to a "financial aid counselor" who told me that my only options were to take the loans I had to pay back before I was out of college. Already working 3 jobs while taking the minimum course load, there was simply no way. I'll never forget the day I told my counselor that I was just going to drop some of my classes at the University and take them at the community college because they considered me an in-state resident and the price was literally $1,500 less per class. Suddenly, they seemed more apt to help telling me that I could go to the Endowment Center for loans with very low interest rates I didn't have to pay back until after college. The whole thing seemed like a giant scam to me then, and it seems like more of a scam to me now. The sad thing is that I was lucky, I was going to a public university.

"Each year, more than two million Americans enroll in for-profit colleges, also known as proprietary schools, and their popularity has only grown since the financial crisis. While traditional four-year colleges are struggling with dwindling student bodies and budget gaps, proprietary schools are reporting record enrollments as the newly unemployed try to retool their skills so they can wade back into the job market. Some of the largest for-profit chains say their numbers have doubled over the last year."

These scam schools are worse for lower income students who hope to learn a trade to enter into the workforce with a bit of a leg up. They're the ones who can't quite afford a 4 year degree and would be great candidates for an associates degree, but they're easily swindled into high interest loans from ads for these schools on TV guaranteeing the top of the line classes, the best and perfect jobs, and top notch skills from professional teachers.

"According to a College Board analysis of Department of Education data, 60 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients at for-profit colleges graduate with $30,000 or more in student loans—one and a half times the percentage of those at traditional private colleges and three times more than those at four-year public colleges and universities. Similarly, those who earn two-year degrees from proprietary schools rack up nearly three times as much debt as those at community colleges, which serve a similar student population.

Proprietary school students are also much more likely to take on private student loans, which, unlike their federal counterparts, are not guaranteed by the federal government, offer scant consumer protections, and tend to charge astronomical interest—in some cases as high as 20 percent."

The piece goes on to say that graduation rates are only at 38% and make for one of the lowest of higher ed schools. And in the end the kids haven't gained the skills necessary to find jobs, because the education was sub-par at best.

The saddest part is that there is ZERO regulation of these schools. And according to this piece, it's just the way they want it:

"That’s partly because the proprietary school lobby has enough clout among lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to keep the issue quiet. But Congress and the Obama administration have also had their hands full advancing other higher education reforms—in particular, legislation to kick private lenders out of the federally subsidized student loan program."

Ideally, with better loan availability there will be more help to students who qualify for Pell Grants. The question I have, however, is how much the schools make off of the private loans? If the school receives a kickback from every student they sign up for a private loan with a 20% interest then they have no incentive to "counsel" the student to fill out the paperwork for the Pell Grant and every incentive to encourage the student to sign up for the high interest loan.

It's the same song, different tune as what I had to deal with. The "counselor" might seem like a super friendly person and they might say that they want to help you, but in the end, they are employees of the school, whose job it is to figure out how to get money out of you to pay for your classes. While these institutions, public or privet, are there to "educate our nation's youth" they are also there making obscene amounts of money.

I think there should be a hearing about these forms of higher education that are swindling an entire generation out of money and out of their education, and there should be some form of standards that these places should be held accountable to. If public and private universities are held to certain standards I think proprietary schools must also be.

In our nation’s higher education system we depend heavily on federal student loans to help students obtain their college degree. Each year this turns millions of college students into new loan consumers. We, as college students and as a nation, need student loan reform.

We have turned college students into a generation who will have massive amounts of debt upon graduating college, and in many cases placing debt upon their families in order to help pay for tuition costs. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act would continue to raise the maximum Pell Grant annually for the next decade to match cost-of-living increases, based on the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent, essentially cutting out the middleman and making the loans more beneficial for students, their families and the nation.

The benefit of this is huge and is in the best interest of constituents for lawmakers to vote for this. I am appalled that some Kansas lawmakers have put the interest of the banks over the interest of Kansas families.

The bill, which passed 253 to 171, would allocate about $80 billion over the next decade for new loans, community colleges, school construction and early childhood programs without increasing taxes or adding to the deficit. How? Instead of paying bankers to provide loans for which they bear no real risk, the government would make the loans directly.

Representatives Todd Tiahrt and Lynn Jenkins were among those to vote against the bill.

Student loans like everything else no longer provide better access to higher education but are instead a huge risk free, financial industry with huge profit margins.

President Obama is fighting for students. He wants to take the $94 Billion and give it directly to students, instead of using the banks as middlemen and giving them huge profit margins off poor college students.

The Christian Science Monitor explains...

WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH STATE FINANCIAL AID AND TUITION AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

Last year, average tuition and fees at public four-year institutions came to $6,590, but the net price (what's paid after receiving various grants) was $2,850. Students also paid $7,750 for room and board, the College Board reports.

Prices, and the degree to which they're going up this year, vary considerably from state to state. Because of revenue declines, at least 32 states have made cuts to higher-education funding recently, and more may follow. California students can expect to see cost increases of up to 20 percent, while those in Washington State, Florida, and New York will see a spike of about 15 percent, says Terry Hartle, a senior vice president at the American Council on Education in Washington.

A number of states, including Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois, have had to cut back on need-based student grants. But pockets of good news exist: Missouri's schools will not raise tuition this year. The state held funding steady by tapping into federal stimulus dollars. Maryland has a tuition freeze in place for the fall, but recent state budget shortfalls have cast doubt on whether that can continue in the spring.

WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH TUITION AND AID AT PRIVATE SCHOOLS?

Last year, average tuition and fees at private four-year institutions came to $25,140; the net price was $14,930. Students also paid $8,900 for room and board.

Tuition and fees for this year are up about 4.3 percent at 350 private, nonprofit schools surveyed by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Washington. That's the lowest increase since the 1972-73 academic year, although it's still higher than overall inflation, the group notes.

Despite drops in endowments and charitable giving, many private schools have anticipated rising demand for financial assistance from families. The schools in the survey increased their aid budgets by an average of 9 percent for this year.

Some have gone even further to compete for enrollment, freezing tuition or offering to match the price of nearby public institutions.

WHAT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOING TO INCREASE AFFORDABILITY?

For one, it's giving a major boost to Pell Grants for low-income students. The stimulus package raised the maximum grant amount for this year to $5,350, from $4,731 – the largest increase since the program started in the early 1970s. Next July 1, it will rise again, to $5,550.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act would continue to raise the maximum Pell Grant annually for the next decade to match cost-of-living increases, based on the Consumer Price Index plus 1 percent. The bill has recently been approved by the House and is now awaiting a vote in the Senate.

"A $40 billion investment in the Pell Grant scholarship [would be] historic," says Rachel Racusen, spokeswoman for the House Education and Labor Committee. "Over the past 30 years, the purchasing power of the Pell Grant has significantly declined, so ... these investments are going to ... make sure that Pell Grants can once again cover an effective share of a student's tuition cost."

One controversial element in the bill is a restructuring of federal loans. It would eliminate a part of the system that has paid subsidies to private lenders to give them incentive to make college loans. All new loans would originate through the government's Direct Loan Program.

The Obama administration's reasoning on this: Since the government already guarantees student loans, it should reap the interest payments rather than private lenders that haven't taken on the risk. But the private sector would still be contracted to service and collect the loans, so borrowers should notice little change.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this shift would save $87 billion over 10 years, which could pay for the Pell Grant increase and other education initiatives. Some lawmakers oppose this idea, saying they doubt it would really save that much and that it may lead to job losses in the lending community. But the change appears to have enough support to be approved in Congress this fall.

Other provisions in the bill include funding for community colleges and incentives to improve college graduation rates. The stimulus package, meanwhile, has expanded college tax credits for low- and middle-income families.

In an article published Thursday, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on a UCLA Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) survey, "The American Teacher," which found that a majority of today's faculty place an emphasis on becoming a change agent when teaching college students as opposed to teaching them the classic works of Western civilization.

The UCLA education professor who directs the institute believes the results point to a burgeoning gap in higher education between the abstract and the practical.

Sylvia Hurtado, a professor of education at UCLA who directs the research institute, said the gap between those who value teaching Western civilization and those who value teaching students to be social activists reflects a shift in emphasis from the abstract to the practical. "The notion of a liberal education as a set of essential intellectual skills is in transition," she says. "It's also about social and personal responsibility, thinking about one's role in society, and creating change."

Across the board, more faculty admitted to paying attention to the liberal arts while teaching.

The survey found other evidence that professors are increasingly interested in helping students develop morals and in helping them get a well-rounded education and form a commitment to their communities. In particular, 72.8 percent of professors think it is important to instill in students an appreciation for the liberal arts—nearly 15 percentage points more than said so three years ago. About 56 percent say it is important to instill an appreciation for community service—a nearly 20 percentage-point increase—and 71.8 percent say it is important to enhance students' "self understanding." About 70 percent say it is important to help students develop "moral character," 13 percentage points more than said so three years earlier.

Those are pretty big jumps for three years in between surveys. I would undoubtedly think that the success of Obama's change-based campaign and the high interest in the presidential election has something to do with these numbers.

Others argue that faculty are beginning to pay increased attention to the non-classroom side of the student, as incidents like the Virginia Tech shootings of April 2007 and others involving campus violence have occurred.

Whatever the cause, I'm encouraged by these findings, and I'm hopeful that the kind of education seen here -- multidisciplinary, focused on empowerment and citizenship -- continues to grow in the future.

An ostensibly unrelated commentary piece by a Middlebury College economics professor (subscription req. - sorry!), also published in The Chronicle this week, argued that economics at a liberal arts college is the best major for college graduates to have in a depressed job market following graduation, and as a result, it's popularity is surging.

Like many liberal-arts institutions, Middlebury College, where I teach, has a problem: Too many students want to be economics majors. Economics enrollments keep growing, and adding more faculty members to the department seems to only increase the demand. The rumor on the campus is that if the college actually provided enough professors to meet the demand for economics courses, it would have to change its name to the Middlebury School of Economics.

Professors at other liberal-arts colleges confirm that the phenomenon is widespread and has been for some time.

[...]

Companies like to hire economics majors from liberal-arts colleges not because the students have been trained in business, but because they have a solid background in the liberal arts. What I hear from businesspeople is that they don't care what a job candidate has majored in. They want students who can think, communicate orally, write, and solve problems, and who are comfortable with quantitative analysis. They do not expect colleges to provide students with specific training in business skills.

If the economics major's popularity is not due to its intellectual dynamism or connection to business, to what is it due? I suspect a mundane explanation: It is the "just right" major. By "just right" I mean that the economics major provides the appropriate middle ground of skill preparation, analytic rigor, and intellectual excitement that students look for in a major, and that employers look for when hiring students.

Both of these stories are interesting to me because of the "intellectual pragmatism" link involved in both. In one, students are in the classroom developing practical skills, learning to engage the government through their citizenship in order to create positive change. In the other, students are in the classroom, many already possessing these practical quantitative skills, seeking the liberal arts approach to economics and business, adding intellectual heft by learning to write and think creatively.

I'm in the middle of writing another post discussing the increasing number of recent college grads majoring in environmental studies who have gone on to work in institutions (especially higher education). These young professionals advise administration officials on sustainability practice -- more intellectual pragmatism.

And finally, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and argue that the intellectual pragmatism Barack Obama flaunted on the way to the White House wasn't too poorly received by Millennials.

Any feedback? If you share my opinion that we're seeing an appreciation for this melding of intellect and practice among Millennials, how might this help us to continue developing a future majority?

After reading various posts about the American Recovery and Readjustment Act on the main FM blog, I decided I'd share my views on the act, considering I will be a college student in the fall.

In this week's Pelosi 411 e-mail for students and young americans, there was a lot of talk about the act and how it will benefit college students.

"It will help students by boosting funding for Pell Grants, creating a $2,500 tax credit for nearly 4 million students, and tripling the number of science fellowships. This bill is also the first time that a tax credit will help students defray the rising costs of textbooks."

There was also a really good link to a YouTube video of Ohio representative, Tim Ryan, explaining the benefits the act will have towards higher education.

There was an interesting piece written by Emily Rutherford on Campus Progress about a group of students at University of Florida organizing a hunger strike to express concern about the university's endowments.

I am very hopeful about the passing of this bill because honestly I think it will affect me and thousands of other college students in a positive way. As an out of state student at University of Missouri, I've received a few scholarships, but yet I still worry about paying for college. I practically live on FastWeb and I stayed home from school today to finish up scholarship applications and essays that are due tomorrow.

I'm going to go out on limb here and trust President Obama, because its been a long time since I've had full faith in our leaders. I figure I should at least give them a chance.

With the economy in a serious slump, state systems of higher education are on the chopping block again, as governors and state legislatures trim the "fat." Private schools have seen large chunks of their endowments vanish. Who is the biggest loser? Students. As endowments and costs are slashed, tuition rates and fees for incoming students increase.

Citing the strains on lower- and middle-class families who are trying to send sons and daughters to college, a coalition of higher education and consumer advocacy groups sent a letter Thursday to Speaker Pelosi arguing for some assistance for students in the upcoming stimulus package. Campus Progress, the U.S. PIRGs, and the Project on Student Debt were all involved in this effort. The letter proposed some actions Congress could take in the new stimulus bill to help college students:

• Raise the maximum Pell Grant to $7,000
• Increase funding for the Federal Work-Study Program by 25 percent.
• Improve access to Parent PLUS loans.
• Provide a limited “emergency access” student loan pool for colleges that commit to providing adequate need-based aid.

While there are those families too poor to realistically consider college right now who we should never forget, these lower- to middle-class prospective students should absolutely be remembered as Congress prepares to draft this legislation.

As the last point in the proposal indicates, one way to honor the blue-collar student is to substantially decrease merit-based aid in favor of need-based aid. Ben Miller, at Higher Ed Watch, explains why:

Every single public college contacted for a recent survey by the National Association for College Admission Counseling said it provided non-need based assistance, or "merit aid." The same survey found that merit aid made up 41.9 percent of public institutional funds, only slightly less than the 46.6 percent devoted to need-based institutional aid. This is troubling because "merit aid" is not targeted at low-income students, and is instead used to compete for the best (and sometimes the wealthiest) students to boost prestige and fundraising. Schools should not be allowed to continue to spend their limited financial aid budgets on non-needy students when low- and moderate-income students are being asked to shoulder ever-larger tuition burdens.

Miller's post as a whole is instructive. Too often institutions of higher education pass on their financial troubles, in the form of tuition increases and student fee hikes, to the students. Perhaps the institutions could look at possible cuts they could be making from within and examine opportunities for streamlining instead of erecting barriers to a college education, a critical piece of the American Dream for many families.

Congress could help my incorporating most, if not all, of this proposal into the new economic stimulus legislation.

(h/t to Pedro de la Torre at pushback)

Bumped. Education costs were a huge priority of young voters in this election. This is one issue where people will be looking to see some early action from an Obama administration. --Mike

Cross posted on College Dems of NY blog:

As a senior at Binghamton University, the SUNY tuition hike has been a hot topic issue. In addition to being President of the College Democrats of NY, I also have a seat on student government at BU.
At this past Monday's student government meeting, students expressed outrage at Governor Patterson's tuition hike. But its not for the reason you might think.

While students aren't happy about the tuition hike, we understand that a deficit must be made up and therefore tuition needs to be raised as a result of cutting SUNY funding.

What students will not stand for, and what Governor Patterson has done to outrage students, is in addition to cutting college education spending to SUNY, he is mandating an increase in tuition which will NOT be going back to the SUNY school, but rather will be used to fund other parts of the NYS Budget that does not encompass college education. This is a blantant tax Patterson is imposing on SUNY students.

So currently, BU students are faced with a $300 proposed tuition increase for next semester, of which only $30 which actually go back to Binghamton U. That is what has caused outrage. If students are to be charged an additional $300, it should directly back to our own school to cover the cut in spending that BU gets from the state, rather than to fund Wall Street's mess or new roads being built.

Each of the past couple of years, SUNY funding has been decreased by several million dollars. I can't even remember the last time that the NYS government increased SUNY funding.

Students are standing up across the state at SUNY schools and saying Enough is Enough! We cannot keep harming our nation's youth in education. I sincerely hope that the Governor changes his proposal to one that makes sense for students.

Your Saturday afternoon reading.

• Larry Sabato, Director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics and Professor of Politics, makes a YouTube video for students, advising them on why and how to get involved in the 2008 election:
  
• Record voter registration in Michigan (with the college town counties forming the list of top five counties with the largest number of new registered voters).
• Florida A&M celebrates the start of early voting in Florida in a big way: one thousand faculty, students, and staff, led by the president, cast votes.
• The GOP must have missed the memo: voter suppression isn't "in" this election cycle. Sorry.
• Rock the Vote prepares for the youth vote tsunami.
• Ypulse, partnering with Alex Steed on his tour across America to meet and talk with other young activists, has a post regarding conversations with young Millennial business leaders engaging in socially responsible business practices.
• Voting on the weekend? An op-ed in the Times explores the benefits of holding two election days -- on Saturday and Sunday -- the first weekend of November.
• A global consensus: 90 percent of youth around the world want to see action taken on climate change.
• A new round of polling of gamers on Xbox Live yields a predictable result: their top concern is jobs and the economy.
• Sarah wrote about Generation We this week, the new site with a plethora of data on Millennials and a free copy of the book by Eric Greenberg. It's Getting Hot in Here has more coverage.
• A great piece by Adrian Talbott on Millennials' engagement thus far this election cycle at Huffington Post.

One of the things we've learned in the Rovian age of the last eight years is that you can dress up public policy with a flattering name -- even if it actually forms the antithesis of its description -- and people will believe it. The Clean Skies Act is one such example.

Whether intentional or not, a South Dakota ballot issue this November has the same misleading characteristics. The South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act, while sounding like a boon for transparent government activists everywhere, could actually stifle political participation and the voice of college students in the state.

The proposal itself -- Initiative 10 -- "would prohibit using taxpayer money or government resources for lobbying or campaigning. It also would make changes in campaign donation laws and require a Web site giving details of state contracts." The problem, of course, is rooted in the fact that many state-funded schools find themselves receiving this same taxpayer money. With student groups being funded by this money, the problem is obvious now, even if it wasn't when it was passed. The fact that legislation like this is passed or proposed (perhaps with the public interest legitimately in mind) without a review of further ramifications is troubling. Lately, this legislative laziness has led to restricted abilities among students to participate in democratic responsibilities, while also tying the hands of institutions of higher education within the state. We saw an example of this in the episode I wrote about a few weeks ago with the University of Illinois restricting the rights of students, faculty, and staff to contribute to any public discourse regarding the election.

In the South Dakota initiative, we once again see lawmakers and proponents of this issue overlooking its consequences, as a student explains.

“When you first read this initiative, I don’t think anybody could be against clean and open government,” said Alex Halbach, executive director of the South Dakota Student Federation, an organization of student governments. “But when you read into the text, it’s so much deeper than that and affects so many different areas.”

Halbach goes on to point out that should this initiative be passed, any student newspaper funded by a university in South Dakota would be prohibited from endorsing a political candidate -- not exactly encouraging civic responsibility and a free exchange of ideas on campus. Furthermore, if the state's Board of Regents needed/felt compelled to lobby politicians on issues in higher education, this initiative, if passed, would prohibit that action.

If you happen to live in South Dakota, please vote no on this issue. While I'm not convinced this initiative was drafted with bad intentions, it nevertheless is faulty as its framers did not take into account the consequences of its passage, especially as it relates to student political participation.

A commentary in this week's issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education by Graham Spanier, President of Penn State University, left me saddened. Once more, someone of the 1960s tries to reconcile their brand of activism in today's political world, and the attempt crashes and burns.

Spanier's first mistake can be found in this passage:

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

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

[...]

As one who vividly recalls antiwar 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 issues that some students choose for protest.

Emphasis mine. Spanier here falls into the trap into which most former Boomer activists fall: he fails to understand that activism and protests are not one and the same. Boomers were loud, aggressive, and more emotional in their activism. So yes, activism was protests, sit-ins, and other bolder, obstructive ways of working against the system. Trusting authority was irrelevant to most Boomer activists -- they knew what they wanted, and they weren't going to stop until they got it. Most Boomers are congratulated and treated as heroes for forcing confrontation of contentious issues, and perhaps they should be. Young people forced progress on a variety of cultural issues, yielding the Civil Rights movement, the Sexual Revolution, the Anti-War Movement -- all because of the loud tactics of this generation.

Spanier's unwillingness to understand that activism as a whole does not require protests in order to be genuine is probably linked to an inability to understand that today's political and sociological environments require a strategic approach, not a tactical approach. Howe and Strauss, clear back in 2000, explained in Millennials Rising that the most productive and efficient time in the workplace and society would be right about now, when Millennial order-takers are coming of age, and Boomer order-givers are at the apex of their power. It's quite apparent that some ironic twist comes into play -- Boomers like Thomas Friedman, Sally Kohn, and now Spanier try to argue that today's young people should be more like them when they know full well they're the order-givers. To ask Millennials to fight against things like the war the Boomers got us in in the first place just isn't asking for a productive and forward-moving society. Environments change, and as Howe and Strauss so often point out, the dispositions of generational cohorts change too.

So while turbulent activism was the name of the game in 1968 when Spanier was 20, collaborative activism is in style today, as Spanier celebrates his 60th birthday. While several examples have been supplied on this blog, one example is Penn State's own "Rally at the Rotunda," a student-led initiative to support increased state appropriations to higher education by gathering for a ceremony at the statehouse, and then lobbying individual legislators to appropriate more money to Penn State University and the state system of higher education. Spanier's presence and heavy involvement make me suspect that he doesn't believe this to be a form of activism, or else he would have cited it in his commentary. But it is a form of activism, at least according to the Penn State student in charge of organizing at least one of these annual rallies:

CCSG Vice President George Khoury, one of the principal organizers of the Rally at the Rotunda, said his organization and others are trying to promote student activism everywhere.

"I feel that activism is everywhere, in different aspects," Khoury said. "At the moment, we're having a diversity summit for all 20 [Commonwealth Campus] locations. It's wonderful -- we have a record turnout."

This year, Livingston said CCSG sought to gain more faculty support for the rally by passing a resolution explaining the purpose of the demonstration to university staff, urging faculty to encourage student attendance and to overlook any absences for the day.

Pay attention to the middle paragraph -- Khoury equates a "summit" with activism -- yes, the times have changed.

You see, Millennials have to be collaborative, pragmatic, and conversational activists in order to make any progress, and this is, in part, due to the Baby Boomers' ideological inflexibility. If Millennials were to get into tactical wars with Boomers, the temperamental sensitivities of the elder generation would preclude them from agreeing to relinquish any decision-making power at all, because of hurt feelings. We've seen it all our lives on the national political stage, so we know it's true. Millennials, instead, have to be strategic in how they go about handling conflicts. Khoury himself speaks to this: "'The best thing is to always speak your mind, but always do it in a professional manner,' he said. 'Don't speak just to speak. If you cry wolf, people won't listen to you anymore.'

When it comes down to it, contemporary campus activists aren't misguided, as the title of the commentary suggests. The former Boomer activists, however, are.