Letter explains student apathy
My initial reaction to Tuesday’s “College freshmen more disinterested than ever, study shows” was appropriately, “Who cares?” Unfortunately though, I was stuck in a tedious class and boredom forced me to examine Felton’s story more closely.Let’s just begin with the headline. “College freshmen more disinterested than ever, study shows.” Actually, the story shows they are merely more disinterested than freshmen since 1966. Further, it is never stated in any study that today’s freshman is less interested in life in general, merely that they are less interested in politics. It would take a mind freed of democratic rhetoric to understand how this could be seen as anything other than a frightening omen. I assume that my audience here is not such, but rather is richly steeped in a passion for politics and democracy, a passion which was so popular in exactly that era with which today’s freshmen find themselves compared. Which is to say that interest in politics has declined since the hippie days when it was groovy to be into politics, man. Bummer dude.But perhaps not. Perhaps new levels of disinterest reflect the status of today’s politics rather than the status of today’s youth. Oh, but it’s so much easier to curse the dark than to change the bulb. Let’s keep talking about those wretched kids.The actual question was whether keeping up with politics was important. It was not whether the freshmen keep up with politics, or whether they are interested (see headline) in politics, but whether they think that their keeping up with politics is important. Hippies thought everything was important including Kool-Aid acid tests and rock concerts on farms. Perhaps today’s freshmen simply aren’t as full of themselves as those before them.To back up this important news we are given a reaction to the situation from a senior (not freshman) history (not poli sci, sociology, etc…) major. This authority believes the report is – in the spirit of “almost pregnant” and “half-dead” – “somewhat accurate.”This is followed by a very telling statistic: Nearly two and a half percent more of the students surveyed smoke more frequently than they discuss politics. And these are related how? What on earth do those things have to do with each other? More freshmen pick their nose than frequently discuss politics. More freshmen jaywalk than frequently discuss politics. More freshmen like the Beastie Boys than frequently discuss politics. Who cares?Oh wait, I get it. That little smoking thing was thrown in to scare readers with the frightening status of today’s apathetic, smoking youth. The horror!Then we have an actual freshman quoted – with no hint as to whether she was smoking when she said it – followed by a nugget of knowledge from a senior agricultural education major (see senior in history comment). Then some statistic about USG elections, made with no reference as to just how terrifying these numbers are. Are the numbers up or down, what percentage of students voted, etc…? Then a senior English major (see senior history, senior ag. ed.) tells us that voting gives us a voice. Yeah? You don’t say.Then there is some contrast with legalizing pot versus promoting racial understanding, two intrinsically related issues. The article closes with a haunting bit of Republican rhetoric.Let’s now turn to the subhead. “Study reports record low voter turnout (not mentioned anywhere in article), students smoke more often than they discuss politics (see above); most at OSU agree with policy.” Was a comprehensive study of OSU students done to validate this statement? There was no mention made in the article. Furthermore, what policy? Can anyone even find the word policy in the article?Might I suggest a follow-up article for Felton? “College reporters more disinterested in accuracy than ever, study shows/ Survey reports record low reader comprehension, stories more emotional than valuable; most at OSU just like the crossword.”
Stephanie MeyerSenior, English
