Quiet intellectualism does exist on campus, despite loud debate

ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM! OK, that was cheap, but I'm glad I got it out of the way. Now you know what I'm going to write about.

I've been somewhat infamous since an editorial I wrote last year, criticizing people who I thought spent too much time pursuing mindless activities rather than those somewhat more thought-related. I remember being mocked for contending that it is more important to learn than to have fun while one is attending college. Indeed, the most valuable lesson I learned from the experience is that the only criticism most mainstream Princeton students seem to strongly react against are those pertaining to alcohol and partying.

It was an interesting experience, and I still stand by most of what I said. Yet epidemic cries of "anti-intellectualism" have gone too far, and focusing so much on what is wrong with the intellectual climate at Princeton — without acknowledging what is good about it — devalues the students here who quietly pursue their studies and less decadent leisure activities. I don't deny that most of the dinner conversation in the dining halls often seems to center around what went on or will be going on at the 'Street,' what new movies are coming out, or which clothing stores are having sales. However, there are still quite a few people out there who sit down to dinner and say, "Hey, you should read this great author I've just discovered..." or maybe even teach a friend how to tie ten different knots learned as an Eagle Scout.

The anti-intellectualism movement, as it's almost come to be (though improperly named, at least here), is in danger of becoming anti-intellectual itself by taking too reductive a view of students at Princeton.

Of course, if there's a problem with anti-intellectualism — and there certainly must be when so many people feel their intellectual lives are lackluster — it should be spoken about. Problems need to be acknowledged, but then they also need to be attacked. I still have not heard much about what we should do about the problem of anti-intellectualism on campus.

Moreover, the talk of anti-intellectualism may serve to isolate those on campus who have a happy, vibrant life of the mind here at Princeton. Are we to fall into the trap of believing in the rule of the strong, that the campus is completely anti-intellectual simply because the behavior of the loudest people (or even the most mainstream people) would seem to imply it? Give credit where credit is due. Criticism is only fair and balanced when it is coupled with acknowledgement of good qualities.

I would challenge those harping on anti-intellectualism (and this group certainly includes myself) to talk to a good mix of students before passing judgment. There is, of course, a faction of students here that does minimal work and spends their weekends undoing whatever good their week's education might have done. There is undoubtedly an even larger faction of students here who, though interested to some degree in learning, are more interested in the good grades that will lead to a high paying, investment banking position come graduation. Would anyone contend these are not anti-intellectual behaviors? Yet, these are only two kinds of students among many.

Reading the 'Prince' on some days (like when some of my editorials come out), someone unfamiliar with Princeton might come to believe that there was nothing to be found here but illiterates, but implying anything of this nature is really just a cheap shot, even if it's meant to serve a point. There are artists, dramatists, mathematicians, jugglers, writers, fencers — the list goes on. I don't want to go into the rhapsodies freshman are so prone to in their first months here, but I do think they have a point.

That's my two cents for now. The anti-intellectualism debate on campus is far from over, but I hope it's kept in perspective. Remember the nerds (and by that I mean math nerds, drama nerds, fill-in-your-passion-here nerds), even if they don't make much noise.