When anti-protest rhetoric becomes rote

Following in the footsteps of dozens of other major publications over the past year or two, Aeon Magazine has just published a critique of student protesters on campuses nationwide. Titled (shockingly!) “How University Students Infantilise Themselves,” the piece denounces the “childlike position” many of these activists take in calling for administrative solutions to deeply-ingrained problems of oppression which manifest at countless universities here in the U.S. It argues that effective protest movements wrest control of situations out of the parties in power and distribute it to the people protesting, and concludes that students should be making the change they wish to see, instead of petitioning a higher authority to do it for them.

I’m largely going to ignore the arguments made herein, because they’re not the interesting part of the article. The only thing that’s striking about this opinion piece, really, is that it says absolutely nothing new. It’s retreading ground covered by the Atlanticeight months ago, it’s rehashing arguments made in an entire print book called “Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity,” and it’s regurgitating points made in a David Brooks New York Times op-ed — which itself regurgitated points from other, more keenly tuned-in writers.

In other words, this Aeon op-ed is beating a dead horse. There’s no other way to characterize something which falls so cleanly and concretely into a mold carved out by probably hundreds of other (and better) arguments before it. It’s a waste of a thousand words. It will reaffirm the beliefs of those who agreed with it already, and it will look pretty dumb to those who didn’t, without providing any new grist for the argumentative mill. It serves absolutely no purpose — it argues nothing new, less than nearly any other piece of the same family which also argues nothing new; it’s written with an impersonality that suggests the author had no real contact with campus protesters before sitting down in his office to crank out the piece; its milquetoast alternative solution — holding teach-ins — is utterly pointless.

A proposal: let’s stop rehashing old arguments. If we’re going to weigh in so publicly on an issue as supposedly pressing as modern campus activism, let’s try to say something we believe hasn’t been addressed yet by the opposing side, instead of using terms from an Atlantic cover. More importantly, let’s actually take the time to listen to the other side before crafting our own arguments. Probably the most frustrating thing about this op-ed is that its total disengagement with boots-on-the-ground protesters and rhetoricians makes for an anti-protest piece which, like so many other anti-protest pieces before it, engages more with a vague, hand-wavey conception of the activism, rather than the actual activism itself. The author here is a professor — he, of all people, should understand that such a disingenuous takedown is academically weak.

Finally, and most importantly, let’s write these op-eds in the same universe about which they’re arguing. The methods suggested as alternatives — teach-ins, as mentioned before, and “protests outside dormitories and fraternity houses, reminding everyone what goes on inside of them” (in this case, sexual assault) — aren’t particularly effective. We know this because, contrary to the assertions in this editorial, these things do happen — look at last year's SPEAR teach-in or Emma Sulkowicz’s “mattress performance” at Columbia. Willfully ignoring what is in fact going on is irresponsible, a failure to consider properly the evidence before writing on that subject.

If a writer wants to make a clear, coherent argument against the “infantilization” of university students, all the power to them. But in order to make that argument worthwhile, the author must engage properly with the world around them, crafting their argument around holes in the cases of the activists, instead of holes in the case of straw men who don’t really exist. Moreover, the author should bring something new to the table, creating a new point of conflict, instead of repeating one which has merited a strong response many times before. It’s one thing to keep dialogue between protesters and anti-protesters alive and well; this is something which will always help keep the protests focused, effective and widely accessible. It’s another thing entirely to ignore the previous groundwork and blunder into a discussion where nothing you say is relevant or worthwhile anymore — and, in that case, you might as well not say anything at all.

Will Rivitz is a sophomore from Brookline, Mass. He can be reached at wrivitz@princeton.edu.