On Aug. 1, 2011, the collective voice of 6,657 American University undergraduates let forth a horrifying cry. The source of pain and suffering? Our school had just lost its claim to fame, its joie de vivre, its mojo: the title of “Most Politically Active” campus.
Yes, the capricious Princeton Review has yet again torn at American University's heartstrings. Typically the “Most Politically Active” rankings have been a two-dog fight between ourselves and cross-town rivals George Washington University. While we have lost (and regained) the top spot before, this rank change is different. Not only did GWU regain the top spot, but AU also plummeted to fifth, infuriatingly behind Georgetown University, yet also perplexingly behind College of the Atlantic and New College of Florida.
What's next? Losing to Catholic University?
Devastating, I know. But let's not allow this to ruin a new year just yet. Instead, we should ask ourselves a few questions: What does such a ranking really mean? And more importantly, why are we as students so infatuated with such a title?
While politics may be a dirty word outside of 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, most AU students have been able to see the treasure in society's taboo. Our achievements speak to this immensely. The counter-protest to the Westboro Baptist Church, electing a student representative to the local Advisory Neighborhood Council, routinely attracting A-list political guest speakers, being one of the top sources of Teach For America and Peace Corps recruits — these are all products of political activism and its inherent desire to change things for the better.
But even though such a drive has proven results, it should also come with a disclaimer. Side effects of being the most politically active campus may include: frequent fanaticism, intro political science classes hijacked by wannabe Voltaires, a campus as divided as Congress and an overwhelming environment to all those not inclined to watch C-SPAN for fun.
Political activism requires a significant amount of conviction in one’s own beliefs, and sometimes this can obstruct the learning environment of others. If every student is protesting his or her own cause, then who is left to listen? Who is left to learn?
In no way am I suggesting that we dial back our passion and beliefs. Like I said before, they've served the AU community well. But too often we have limited our political activism to flippant reactions and impulsive displays. Perhaps without the need to prove to ourselves and to others that we are the most politically active, we can refine our outlet of passion. Less noise, more constructive debate.
Still, some may say our title was more than a pride thing. It was a boon for admissions, a way for our school to stand apart from the neighboring Georges and other schools that attract ideal AU students: seekers of knowledge with the will to apply it to improve the world.
However, Associate Director of Admissions Kristen Schlicker doubts the ranking will have a tangible effect on the University's applicants. Although the ranking is specifically cited in both official recruitment materials and presentations, the nod to the Princeton Review rarely comes from students themselves. As Ms. Schlicker emailed to me, “we hear students mention the fact that we are a politically active campus, but they rarely refer to the Princeton Review ranking specifically.”
So relax fellow Eagles, all is not lost. We will remain a campus driven by political discussion and debate. But again, let's take this opportunity to refine our political activism — to focus it into a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Princeton Review can rank us where they will. The title of “Most Politically Active” should not be our goal, but instead the method for our campus to become more open, driven and thoughtful.
jwenner@theeagleonline.com
