COLUMN: Generation Quiet?

Gregory Wolfe
University Wire
10-12-2007
(Cornell Daily Sun) (U-WIRE) ITHACA, N.Y. -- In an Oct. 10 article in the New York Times, columnist Thomas L. Friedman calls our generation "Generation Q." Q means Quiet. Friedman is "impressed because [students] are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be." But he is "baffled because [students] are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be." He goes on to laud us for doing quiet but meaningful activities, such as joining ROTC, volunteering in AIDS clinics and working for organizations like Teach for America in record numbers. However, Friedman also criticizes Generation Q for its passivity and unwillingness to become a political force, while in my opinion, suggesting that our generation should take after the student movements of the 60's and 70's. He also bemoans the fact that, when we do protest, it is through electronic media: "Virtual politics is just that -- virtual." Friedman calls for student activism in a more "real" in-your-face format. He then concludes by listing three issues that all young people should be concerned with: Social Security, the environment and the growing budget deficit.

To begin, I must say that Friedman's cause is a noble and commendable one. I am especially impressed that the three issues that he names as important to all students are, in fact, pertinent to all students; they defy partisan politics and will affect both conservatives and liberals equally in the future. However, I must disagree with him on several issues.

First, I believe that the biggest barrier to massive student activism in general is that it lacks power and cohesion. Usually, students have neither the money to alter the outcome of political elections nor the ability to be elected to positions of power in the first place. In addition, because being a student is a temporary vocation divided by long winter and summer breaks as well as eventual graduation, it is difficult for students to organize and sustain activism over long stretches of time. If you will recall the Red Bud protests, the issue basically died once summer break hit, and lacked salience once students came back to school. Students are unwilling to stay together for an issue once break hits; they have summer jobs and their lives to live. Political issues will inevitably take a back seat to real life in the end. As an electorate, students are hopelessly impotent because of this.

Second, the new free flow of information has irrevocably changed the way students are able to protest. The Internet is, in fact, an effective way to change politics. In order for activism in "the real world" to be considered important, it must be large and flamboyant enough to gain national attention from the media. The Red Bud protests did not gain notoriety outside the local media. Had they, Cornell may well have folded if confronted by a national outcry. On the other hand, "Internet activism" does not need second party coverage because it can be broadcast more easily. Friedman is incorrect; the Internet can change the world.

Also, activists have a reason to be afraid of what will happen when they protest because everything seems to be public information. Unlike when our parents were protesting in the 60's and 70's, we actually have something real to lose because information about us will most likely end up on the Internet, possibly putting our future jobs in jeopardy. Activism is just much riskier now than it was during our parents' generation.

Moreover, Friedman's hope that we will stop being virtual ignores reality. We were raised on the Internet and will likely use some form of AIM until the day we die. It is natural that we would feel comfortable blogging and protesting through a virtual medium. Even politicians use the Internet now, as evidenced by the millions of dollars presidential candidates are currently raising for their primary campaigns. Heck, they even have Facebook accounts now!

Third, I believe that students, through their organized activities, are actually changing the world as a cohesive group as opposed to expecting someone else to do it for them. A student protester, using his voice, has no idea if he will even be heard. However, a student who works with the poor knows that he has changed the world with his own hands. Actually effecting change is beneficial and rewarding. These experiences will later better equip students to effect change through politics once they have joined the real world, as they will have idealism and optimism ingrained into them through their own hard work. Not to pick on those Red Budders, but they did lose their fight. In hindsight, they may have been better served planting new Red Buds elsewhere.

Thus, in this writer's opinion, Generation Q is an unfair characterization because we are not exactly quiet. We are more introverted but not quite Generation I. Perhaps, "Generation Pragmatic" could best describe us. Why pragmatic? Because, perhaps unlike previous generations, we are obsessed with the future and long term goals, whether that means getting a job, going to graduate school, etc. However, we are also absurdly focused as well. How many of you got summer jobs this year with the goal of being hired at the same place sometime down the road? I know you are already thinking 20 years down the line; before Cornell, most of you were thinking of going to college as early as middle school or, at the very least, the beginning of high school. That means you were focused on college a full four years before you went! And you probably do not even know what you will have for dinner tonight. Quiet? No. Focused on the future so much that you cannot participate in the diffuse student activism of our parents? Yes. This is Generation P.


<!-- Photos Begin -->
photo1:
photo1 credit:
photo1 desc:
photo2:
photo2 credit:
photo2 desc:
<!-- Photos End -->


(C) 2007 Cornell Daily Sun via U-WIRE