The myth of campus apathy

You are voting for them next November.

Supposedly, you don’t care. At some point in their long history, Princeton students picked up the damning reputation of being ‘apathetic’ with regard to political issues. This stereotype is both reflected and enforced by campus publications, especially those with an investment in the level of political activism on campus. Toni Alimi’s article in the most recent issue of The Tory makes a passing comment about how “Princeton students display apathy towards expressly political causes.” An editorial in the ‘Prince’ entitled ‘Occupy Princeton’ begins with the line, “Princeton has a reputation for political apathy that is perhaps unique among our peer universities,” and goes on to praise the Occupation movement for breaking through that apathy.

What happened to the alma mater of James Madison and Woodrow Wilson? Has the university lost something of its creed, having failed to live up to the motto, “Princeton in the nation’s service?” Well, no, not if the career choices of alumni are any indication. Princeton has produced a long list of recent and current public officeholders, including Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Eliot Spitzer and Donald Rumsfeld. We have a professional school wholly dedicated to training students in foreign and public affairs. Our international relations department is one of the strongest in the country.

Where does the label of ‘apathy’ come from? Most of my friends at Princeton care about politics; they follow the Republican primaries, watch The Daily Show and identify with certain political philosophies just as much as the next college student — which is to say, not obsessively, but not indifferently either.

On most college campuses there is a small but very vocal demographic of ardent political junkies who make a lot of noise but ultimately do not represent the voice and feelings of the student majority. This helps to explain the discrepancy between the high level of political activism on campuses and the low turnout for college-age voters. While campus libertarians may fiercely campaign for Ron Paul, on Election Day these activists have but one vote each. Their passion will not convince the bulk of the student body.

I have had many political discussions this year with fellow students. These discussions far more frequently took the form of conversation than argument, which may lead one to conclude that we were not invested in the subject. Not screaming, however, does not imply not caring. I have found that my peers possess informed, intelligent views on current political developments. Unfortunately, they often also sport a self-conscious, apologetic attitude for not being furiously agitated one way or another about said developments. Perhaps this consciousness of their own moderation, in contrast with the vociferous partisanship of a stereotypical student activist, makes them more hesitant to voice their opinions, leading to the pervasive impression that they don’t have any.

The ‘Occupy Princeton’ editorial notes that the political student groups so central to other university campuses “tend to be understaffed and to maintain an unnoticed presence on campus.” This results in a quieter campus dialogue that often takes place on an individual rather than organizational level. I do not believe that the average Princeton student is more apathetic than any other college student in America. If anything, the lack of dominating, polarized political groups on campus allows for a freer exchange of ideas between students of different persuasions.

Woodrow Wilson said in his ‘Princeton in the Nation’s Service’ address, “It is indispensible, it seems to me, if [Princeton] is to do its right service, that the air of affairs should be admitted to all its classrooms.” He added, “I do not mean the air of party politics but the air of the world’s transactions.” Princeton students may be, overall, less inclined to heated debates over partisan issues. We are not, however, disinterested in politics as a whole, and the temper of our discussions will result in more thoughtful dialogue than the charged rhetoric of college students with set political affiliations and activist agendas. It is fair to criticize the tenor of political conversation at Princeton; to pretend that it does not exist, however, and to claim that a lack of strong partisan organizations with starkly demarcated positions on policy issues is a sign of apathy is slandering the student body. Come November, Princeton students will be as well represented in the election as those of any other university, with the added advantage of having made their political choices in a relatively independent, moderate environment.