“”Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s warning was true in the 1960s, and is true today. Oft-repeated statistics amusingly chronicle the lack of political and historical knowledge in this country (something like 30 percent polled don’t know who the vice president is). Yet surely in universities such as UCSD, such confounding inanity is absent.
After all, UCSD, or any college for that matter, is built on the principle of advancing human understanding and knowledge. The University of California’s seal says “”Let There Be Light,”” metaphorically shedding a glow of intellectual progress over the shadows of primal ignorance. And it is true. UCSD is a bastion of research, academic activity and constant learning. How much students appreciate and take advantage of these resources is another story.
On my bulletin board is a strip of paper reminding me that “”Higher education is the only business in which customers desire less than their money’s worth.”” This refers to the fact that many students seek to learn only as much as they have to. In this way, perhaps ignorance takes a different form in an institution that solely exists for learning. It is an ignorance that is not bright lights-shiny obvious; it is seeping and quiet, but potent and dangerous in its own right. This ignorance exists both in the absence of a broad range of knowledge, and more troublingly, the lack of interest in attaining it. A struggle between “”applicable”” learning versus learning for the sake of learning continues in colleges everywhere. First, this is manifest in the scorn with which most college students treat general education requirements.
From overhearing students and talking to friends, it seems that taking everything from required writing courses to foreign language classes is, on the whole, more obligatory than enjoyable. The university must strive to make students stay here as long as possible and thus bogs them down with superfluous requirements that have little or no bearing on their future professions. However, the purpose of GE requirements is to expand the depth and breadth of our knowledge. The university practices a paternalism that tells us what is good for us, but we are suspicious. What’s the point of reading this? How is this going to help me in the future? The predominant idol for college students seems to be the applicability of their classes. For example, I decided to take a philosophy course this quarter. When friends inquired why I was taking it, I said, “”For fun.”” To which they would respond, “”you mean, like a GE?”” It was foreign to them that I wanted to take a class merely for my personal interests.
A counter-argument might exist in the fact that the bulk of classes at UCSD and other universities are hardly relevant to the job market. The cycle of “”useless”” knowledge is both a futile luxury of the listless elite and maybe even an impediment to society’s society. Linguistics professors teach linguistics to linguistic majors who will become linguistics professors. There is money to be made, mouths to be fed, and little time to dally around dissecting word roots.
Such an argument is one-dimensional, yet sadly, probably held by more than a few. The foundation of the argument makes sense: Those with college degrees make more money than people without college degrees. People go to college to get a certain kind of expertise and learning that supposedly guarantees them a more financially secure future. These are plain facts of life, and there is nothing wrong with making money.
If all one wanted was a practical degree for their vocation though, then why didn’t he or she enroll in DeVry Institute or a technical school? Especially at a large research university, the understanding is that a person leaves with an education not just tailored for the job world, but for life itself.
Additionally, in this fast-paced American society where technology reigns, the constant need for bigger and better overshadows everything else: faster computers, roomier cars, bigger rockets. Science and cutting-edge technology are disciplines in their own right, but often relegate the less applicable humanities, languages and arts to the back burner of importance.
The amalgam of facts, theories and ideas that stem from so many subjects does not just sit in a mind, taking up space. Practical or not, they contribute to cultivating savvy, intelligent, discerning and well-rounded individuals. One cannot form a credible opinion about anything without obtaining a thorough understanding of it first.
And perhaps the least practical learning can breed the most intense passions ‹ a habit of reading enriches the mind, a penchant for music stirs the soul. Learning anything and everything not only saves a person from being utterly bored but also from being utterly boring. Ironically, as a side benefit, employers look for diversity of interests and traits.
The problems of society cannot be solved by a flick of a switch or a new invention. They involve looking within a complex and intricate society with complex and intricate souls. They involve constant and spirited learning. They involve knowing the facts, contemplating decisions, and moving to action. A rich and diverse education is prime preparation in starting this sequence. The danger of an ignorant public not only threatens individuals, but the standard of a progressive, civilized society as well.
The opposite of ignorance is knowledge ‹ all knowledge. A diet of colonial history, Latin and Russian lit may at first glance seem foolish in comparison to engineering or biology. Yet all these disciplines deplete the “”sincere ignorance”” that King mentions. As for “”conscientious stupidity,”” college students will always be guilty of that.
