There is a saying in Ireland that you can always hear an American before you see him. There is something to be said for being very loud, though. The squeaky wheel always gets the oil, as the adage says. The louder you are, the more people listen to you, whether they want to or not. Political groups have picked up on this very well. If something is shouted long enough, people will innately begin to believe it.
UCSD is no exception to this rule. In fact, most political groups on campus have but one strategy: yell as loudly as possible, insulting anyone who disagrees with them along the way. Walk by any protest or political student organization table on Library Walk and this becomes more than apparent.
Now, if this form of indoctrination works for a certain political group and if people are stupid enough to buy it, then one can only congratulate them on playing politics well. There is nothing innately wrong with yelling at people to convince them of something; however, it does point to a larger problem that prevails at UCSD, as well as most other universities.
Universities are supposed to be a haven for the intelligent and the search for enlightenment. Students generally fail to uphold these standards in terms of expression of opinion. Perhaps this is why they are still students. One would hope, however, they have been accepted at UCSD with a pre-existing notion of reason. For a place of such vast resources and oceans of ideas and opinions, the arguments that students use tend to come down to a few basic insults.
Most politically active students resort to a few simple and overused attacks for everyone that disagrees with them. Here are just a few that prevail at UCSD: if you are opposed to affirmative action, you’re called a racist. If you condemn suicide bombings, you’re called a Zionist apartheid supporter. If you don’t support Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, you’re an imperialist gringo. If you don’t support McClintock, you’re a backstabbing traitor to Republicans. If you believe constructive dissent is valuable, you are an anti-patriot. If you don’t support gay marriage, you’re a homophobe. If you read the Koala, you don’t deserve free speech.
Read any number of the letters to the editor in the Guardian and you can see even respected representatives of distinguished student organizations attack the most insignificant difference in opinion with an onslaught of insults, ranging from simple one-word snaps, to saying that their specific opponent doesn’t deserve the same freedoms that everyone else has.
While most student organizations are more or less careful not to be directly responsible for these childish insults, the desire to use them still permeates the individuals in these organizations. A notable exception to this rule, of course, is the absurd outburst of attacks at the A.S. election results meeting in spring 2002. Unfortunately, since it was Students First! that was responsible, all the politically active student clubs involved with this movement had a lot of answering to do.
There is an old saying: if your opponents resort to threats and insults, their argument has already failed. However, it doesn’t seem likely that these politically aware groups are so ignorant that their only intellectual resort is insulting. It’s more probable that these students have merely succumbed to the intense anger and hatred that accompanies prolonged yelling and protesting.
It isn’t news that college students are an angry bunch. It makes sense actually, because when a student lets politics saturate their existence, the emotion can be overwhelming. I take that one from experience.
Furthermore, if the same student then engages in chanting, protesting and yelling as forms of propaganda, there is even less restraint of emotion, and civil debate is flushed down the toilet. Even so, there is nothing wrong with this anger, except that it’s extremely hypocritical on a college campus that is supposed to uphold reason and intelligence. Such reason would suggest that both sides of any issue should be weighed before making an educated decision. This research will almost always place the student in a state of mind that would not require such outbursts.
Clearly, this is not what regularly occurs on campus. And, although students love to be unique, their attitudes only worsen with solidarity. A very prevalent example is the sustained attack on Ward Connerly. Most students are against Proposition 54. However, instead of participating in intellectual debate against Proposition 54, the unity among students merely tries to squash the possibility that there is another side to the issue. Proposition 54 supporters have become bigots and Ward Connerly, the ³most hated black man in America,² has actually betrayed the black community.
That’s all far too easy for students who are here to learn to rise above the rest of society. In the end, the shouting eventually gets old. Students either rebel or become apathetic. Thus, as much as they will refuse to admit it, even the ardent Ché supporters will probably grow weary and support a moderate Democrat later in life. Perhaps more progress could really be made if students were actually convinced of ideologies, rather than mentally submitting to all the shouting. That’s probably too much to ask, considering each group wants to make their cause heard the most. Plus, we Americans are too loud anyway.