Hopkins students are intelligent and ambitious. Many are also political. But Homewood campus is increasingly beset by a poor combination of intelligence, ambition and political energy.
You find this on both sides of the Hopkins political aisle. On the "liberal-left" students speak of environmental change while having little knowledge as to how to effectively bring about change. On the "conservative-right" students will, for example, write in newspapers about how Hopkins faculty are part of a broader socialist impulse.
In general students exhibit three characteristics when expressing political opinions: excessive self-righteousness, a tendency to resort to polemicism or sloganeering, and poor communications skills. By expressing opinions in this way students undermine the force of their ideas. This results in a self-marginalization typical of radical views lacking credibility.
All ideas contain some degree of self-righteousness. My own opinion here is certainly self-righteous. But it seems a lot of students lack the credibility to backup their ideas. For example, social justice majors around campus speak of progressive social and political change, a laudable idea. But if you encounter social justice majors in the classroom you will see that when expressing their opinions they often appear intellectually arrogant.
Can the ideas of a fellow undergraduate, who is likely just as intelligent as you, really be that much better? The answer does not really matter; when students speak as though they know everything they only sideline themselves. Nobody likes to be around people who think themselves better than others -- this is equally true in the realm of ideas.
Last week the Students for Environmental Action (SEA) were chanting "More trees, less Bush!" outside the breezeway. This catchy slogan drew attention to the fact that commercial logging harms the environment. It also served to draw attention to the need for change in the logging industry. Every educated student knows that the destruction of forests hurts the environment. But by encapsulating this need for change in a four-word phrase, the SEA trivialized the importance of the issue.
After all, true proponents of environmentalism seek political change through broad-based activism -- they back up their catchy phrases with real action. Instead, the SEA undermines the relevance and importance of the issue by holding lighthearted demonstrations on the upper quad. You could see students laughing and directing offensive remarks to the five demonstrators. The goal of drawing attention to environmental issues fell back on itself, instead pushing attention away from such issues.
Even more alarming than the SEA's demonstrations are the College Republican's communication skills. In their newspaper, The Carrolton Record (TCR), one often finds language characteristic of Michael Moore, Anne Coulter or various Internet bloggers. Such language departs from objectivity and instead colors everything in pure bias. And though it may appeal to adherents of the particular bias, it undermines the spirit of discussion by dividing debaters rather than persuading them. One need only read a page in the most recent TCR, for example, to witness how Democrats and liberals are responsible for the sky falling.
But poor communication comes in other variants as well. In the News-Letter's Science section two weeks ago a student authored a piece that spoke of the coming danger due to global warming. This is a scientific fact that many scientists have devoted their lives to researching. It is also serious; global warming seems to be on the increase and could conceivably affect the entire world. But the author appeared more intent on repeating various talking points heard elsewhere rather than presenting the seriousness of the matter in a credible way. For instance, she suggests to "put high pressure on those in power to change their destructive ways," and argues that "it is critical that we unite to stop climate change."
This analysis of what should be a serious matter reeks of misdirected political bias and juvenile phraseology. It is no wonder the Bush administration refuses to confirm global warming -- when presented like this the threat sounds more like a joke than a scientific fact.
Sadly, a large portion of political dialogue on campus appears this way. This is unfortunate for students because they only impede their own agendas by undermining their own credibility. Students should bring the style with which the ideas are presented onto a level of sophistication equal to the content of the ideas.
--Michael Huerta is a junior applied mathematics and political science major.
