Three Easy Steps to Rid Midd of Apathy

Author: DREW EDELSTEIN '07

The past few weeks of Middlebury Campus articles have both brought to light and criticized the apathy epidemic that has struck Middlebury College. I want to dispel the notion that one can only change the world with a loud voice. The countless number of students working at Porter Hospital or spending their entire J-Term in BiHall, taking organic chemistry, have little or no voice on the global scale. Every one of them has aspirations to help and make a difference in the world. And yet, I've heard a discussion in which a person taking a J-Term class on Hurricane Katrina talked down to and belittled a pre-med student who did not have the privilege, based almost entirely on the course he was taking.

These experiences have led me to wonder whether or not Middlebury breeds apathy, or rather alienation. I feel that misguided activism is the culprit-people talking so loudly that they deafen our otherwise attentive ears. One way to remedy this would be to look at the most successful activist in the history of our country. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his Letter from Birmingham Jail outlines the three steps necessary before protest that are often lacking in academia.

The first stage, the collection of facts, should be second nature to the academic world. As students, we research, read and question, hoping to gain insight. This is the cornerstone of protest; knowing what and why you are protesting. Yet, when Fred Singer, the winner of the Flat Earth Award, offered to come to Middlebury College to defend his anti-global warming stance, students quickly turned him down.

Never mind how exciting it would have been to watch Richard Wolfson or Jonathan Ishaam go toe-to-toe in an epic debate. If campus activism seeks to diminish and deride opposing views, I'll more than happily take on the mantle of neutrality. At least then I'll be able to hear more than one opinion.

After all the facts have been gathered, negotiation serves as a crucial bridge before protest. Last year, I was stopped from entering Pearsons, my residence, by a blockade of angry protesters. PALANA had staged a protest against the Frisbee Team's Cowboy and Indian party. Instead of civilly discussing the party theme or requesting an apology for crudely worded voicemails, students decided to immediately take action. As a result, I was barred from going to my room. I am not sure if Native Americans felt in any way vindicated that night, but I can speak for myself. I was disappointed that students chose to bring violence and anger to a campus when a peaceful resolution would have served their cause.

Finally, if protest is a necessity, King insisted upon "self-purification." While I do not know exactly what this abstract term entails, its absence is extremely visible. For example, at last week at UC Santa Cruz, student protesters massed outside of a military recruitment tent at a job fair. As the "activism" escalated, recruiters were forced to leave out of fear that either students or law enforcers would be hurt. These protesters were fighting for free speech and tolerance, yet their actions spoke with none of those qualities. Those interested in a career in the military were intimidated and bullied, and the situation depicted the anti-war movement as a group of bellicose thugs.

When gearing up for confrontation, I know how adrenaline rushes to your head, throwing you into fight-or-flight mode. When 150 people are behind you, picking a fight is much easier than turning tail. We see the results of this animalistic process even in developed countries, such as France. Self-purification washes away these primal urges, and focuses us on the cause at hand. You can find this attitude all over Middlebury, when students choose to organize a mass bike rally rather than firebomb a factory. For the most part, this self-purification is not an issue. We meditate and discuss, focusing our thoughts and actions rationally. Still, there is a darker side to protest that we must be on guard for, a darker side which serves only to alienate and divide. The UCSC students, by protesting conflict and war, only created a new one.

I am mostly hoping that the campus activists read this and realize that almost everyone at Middlebury wants to make a difference in the world, and wants to become a substantial part of society. This should be appreciated and welcomed, even if it initially comes as discouraging. No one truly apathetic would have been admitted to this college. The students you don't see protesting may be directing their passions elsewhere. The best one could hope for is not to alienate this segment of Middlebury, or self-righteously scorn them. As students, the pursuit of personal happiness and truth should unite us, not divide.