Conor Daly: Rationalizing the apathy of an uncaring generation

As practical jokes go, it wasn't half-bad. Last week, many Penn students (myself included) fell victim to a ruse about Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen matriculating into the Class of 2007 after viewing or hearing second-hand about a posting on CNN's Web site announcing that the twins chose to attend none other than dear old Penn. The rumor mill ran at full speed that day. Some of us were more excited than others, but most of us were nevertheless a little starstruck. Our hopes were crushed when we found out that the Web site was a fake, similar to the many others posted online by students at other schools to play the same joke on their unsuspecting friends and colleagues. When the deception was revealed in this newspaper last week, the creators of the Penn version drew the ire of many a Full House fan, those hoping that one of the Olsens could end up their sorority sister, roommate or, dare I say it, girlfriend. It's quite remarkable that students at this school, traditionally derided for being apathetic and uncaring for current events -- especially campus news -- could be shocked from their complacency to really care about something, albeit idiotic, enough to fuel discourse on that subject to the point where you can't walk down Locust Walk without hearing at least 15 people mention the words "Olsen twins." Elisabeth Kwak-Hefferan wrote this week about student apathy and concluded that many in our generation fail to vote because we "put too much faith in a few stock excuses," which she dispenses as lacking a conceivable grounding in reality. Our generation's apathy for weighty issues, then, whether of national importance or of a more provincial nature, can be disposed of through a simple appeal to rationality. Dislodging Penn students from their apathy cannot be that easy, especially when one examines the student body's history of involvement in campus issues besides those involving the Olsen twins. The debate over Iraq during the past year has given activists and the politically savvy among us the ammunition with which to debate, protest and sit-in. However, despite their work and efforts to educate the uneducated and encourage broader activism, the majority of the undergraduate student body shows little or no interest more than to say, "I don't know enough about it." The same has been true of the unionization debate. Despite the fact that undergraduates will be indirectly affected by the conflict's outcome (we are the ones who are being instructed, and isn't this University about education anyway?), many and maybe most undergraduates exhibit little interest in the controversy, again claiming a lack of knowledge. The majority of undergraduates I know are those types, and I have seen Kwak-Hefferan's theory of rationalizing fail time and time again. So the question is: Do Penn students care about anything serious? The Olsen experience partially gives us the answer. We shouldn't be surprised by the momentary lapse in apathy the Olsen twins story brought. What countless students saw in their matriculation to Penn was the prospect of living, studying, socializing with famous people, basking in their glow and, of course, being able to tell our friends back home all about it. Seems a little self-interested doesn't it? Under that logic, the majority of largely apathetic Penn undergraduates will begin to care about serious issues when the issues directly pertain to their personal interests. If true, my theory is disappointing to those who place much hope in the young to be forward-looking advocates for causes, but from what I have experienced, college, for many, is a whole lot about "me" and "I" and less about everybody else. If it had been successful, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel's efforts to reinstate the draft for the possible war in Iraq would have served to ignite this campus in anti-war activism, awakening the majority of our undergraduate population from its indifferent slumber. In that situation, many men at this University would be faced with the possibility of mandatory military service, thus possibly preventing them from continuing along their chosen career paths (it's war, people do die). I am confident in saying that if they realized that, these students would take a position on the war very quickly and entrench themselves in activism accordingly. We are not totally disinterested in real issues and intelligent discourse, but rather, in the case of many, our interest is shrouded by a more powerful force of spoiled-brat self-interest. This apathy hides a streak of activism, which will only appear when encouraged through a realization that the resolution of some important issue which has never interested us before suddenly promises to determine some part of our lives. Short of such a phenomenon, the apathy among Penn's undergraduates will continue, enveloped by continued calls to action by activists, to watch for the next big rumor about '80s sitcom stars attending Penn; maybe next time, it will be that sassy robot from Small Wonder. Conor Daly is a senior Political Science major from Boxford, Mass.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.