OPINION Wednesday, December 2, 1981 Page 4 The Michigan Daily Times change and apathy increases By Gary Schmitz Is apathy really pervasive among today's students? Or is activism now merely less obvious than it was in the 1960s? The following is the first in a two-part series that looks at apathy from two different perspectives. The second article will appear tomorrow. What's on your mind these days? Are you worried about the University becoming a haven for defense research? Maybe you're concerned with the ever-atrocious housing situation in Ann Arbor. Or could it be that you're wondering about the future of financial aid? Probably not. More likely you're worried about next week's test, or maybe looking for- ward to dime night at Dooley's. And as far as financial aid goes, hell, it's too early to apply anyway. FOR A LOT OF students these days, student activism means heckling preacher Jed bet- ween classes. Student takeovers of campus buildings are something that used to happen, a piece of history as vague and unreal as a World War II film clip. What has become of student activism? Are students indifferent to university, community, and national issues? Have we changed so very much in the past decade? The answers are not that easy to find; student apathy is a difficult subject to grasp. It is a complex issue that demands something more than the usual "me generation" ex- planation. MICHIGAN STUDENT Assembly Vice President Amy Hartmann said recently, "the current political and economic situation has forced students to change their priorities." She's right. Many parents can no longer foot the bill for their children's education, and financial aid is becoming harder to get. Studen- ts are being forced to carry more and more of the financial burden themselves. This added worry, plus the extra demand for students' time, leaves little room for political activism. What little free time is left is usually given over to the rest and relaxation that is necessary in a high-pressure university environment. It's possible that this new economic at- mosphere has helped another major change in student attitudes. Students are becoming "more pragmatic" in the classroom. It is becoming increasingly evident that the way most students perceive education has changed. Learning for the sake of learning-at least at the undergraduate level-is almost unheard of. Marketability now seems to be the primary purpose of education. With the current tight job market, students realize that prospective em- ployers are becoming increasingly selective. Things like GPAs and alma mater prestige have become more important than before, and increased competition, rather than increased learning, has resulted. WITHIN'THIS framework, activism and the desire for change have become irrelevant. Anything that looks good on your resume is fine, but a sit-down strike for something you 0 believe won't help you get a job. And that's the name of the game these days. Even the simple act of voting is largely ignored. In 1974, for example, more than 4400 votes were cast in the student-dominated second ward. In the 1981 city council elections, only 1,169 people from the same second ward bothered to cast ballots. Part of the reason for this may be that many students simply no longer consider themselves part of the Ann Arbor community. Realizing that they will be here for a relatively short period of time, students now ignore the Ann Arbor political scene. Perhaps they are ignorant of the devastating impact city politics can have on their lives, especially in terms of housing and parking. Yet students have opted for very little say about how the city is run. EVEN SCARIER is student ignorance of University issues. In January 1979, the Daily did a telephone survey of approximately 200 students "selected at random from the student directory." The survey was compiled when the University was searching for a permanent suc- cessor to Robben Fleming. It brought out some frightening results. Fully. 55 percent of the students polled did not know who the current University president was. About 18 percent correctly identified the acting president as Allen Smith, but 13 percent thought that Fleming was still in charge. In fact, only 38 percent were unaware that there was a presidential search going on. Why are students so ignorant about. issues that hit you so close to home? There are several reasons, including the changing nature of student responsibility mentioned earlier. But beyond this there are at least two additional explanations for the decline in overt student political activity. FIRST, THERE seems to be a per- vading sense of powerlessness on campus. Students feel so far removed from the decision making process that even the selection of a new University president seems to make little dif- ference in their lives. The decisions that come from the Administration Building might as well come from Mount Sinai. As Richard Levick of PIRGIM correctly points out, our educational system, especially at the secondary level, does not encourage students to learn by doing. Theories are stressed, not their application. Af- ter years of passive education, it is unrealistic to expect students to step onto a campus and take an active role in the political process. Second, a drastic change in circumstances explains why students in the late 60's and early 70's were able to overcome this sociological handicap. In the early part of the 60s students were fairly quiet despite the ongoing Vietnam war, and increasing civil rights unrest. The turning point came in early 1965 when it became in- creasingly apparent that student draft defer- ments were no longer a sure bet; students were warned that they would lose their deferred status unless they carried thirty credit hours per year. NOT LONG AFTER the Selective Service System announced that students who did not meet certain academic qualifications would lose their deferment. Suddenly the war in Viet- nam became very real to college students. The white middle class was finally being touched by the war, and suddenly everyone gave a damn. To be sure, most students did not have real moral concerns, and they questioned the direc- tion their country was taking. But their initial motivation was self-preservation. As one student during the late 60s, commented: "It was hard not to get involved when one of your friends was getting his head bashed in by th Washtenaw County cops." Today, students see no issues Liat confront them in such a manner. That's not to say there aren't important issues on this campus. It's just that students' lives have not been so direc- tly challenged. As of now, the white middle class that dominates this campus feels no cause for protest. THIS IS NOT to say that there aren't any politically active students on this campus. There is, and the remaining student leaders emphasize, a core of students who work very hard for the causes they believe in. It's just that most of us do not fit into that category. There seems to be an overall lack of foresight among students. Even larger cuts in financial aid programs are on the horizon, yet few seem to care. By sheer numbers, students are potentially a most powerful political group on campus and in the city. But, for one reason or another, they have given up their political voice. Even with all these explanations for student apathy, you still have to ask yourself: Is it excusable?, Schmitz is an LSA junior. - T ------pgt[,Y n ---~~i Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Weasel By Robert Lence Vol. XCIlI, No. 68 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board HEY WEASEL, WHAT ARE YOU pOIN& TONIC44T? IVE GIST AN EXTRA TICKET TO THAT LEGTOn OBIOMPU5 6Y DR. DWAYW DRYER ! woo? i 1 Students and LSA-SG --...mwm.r R. WWAYNE DRYER . You KNOW, WE WRaTE SELF- HELP Soo, %ME FI RST. 3)." 1,: , >'}'' . b .. ,~i. yi ; ,y + ":'7 T t -Y :>t! . . . a .