The Challenge Of Our Generation

All too often, there is a tendency to view critically one generation in light of its immediate predecessor. Baby-boomers who grew up during the turbulent years of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam war have somewhat derisively labeled our generation "Generation X"--which, over the years, has come to mean directionless, apathetic, even lazy. Some argue that when they were in college they went out and protested--marched, made noise and, on occasion, found themselves locked up for their principled civil disobedience. All we do, on the other hand, is shop, watch television and complain.

It's impossible to deny that the '90s have been considerably less tumultuous than the '60s. We can't hide the fact that few of us have been dragged down the steps of a university building while demanding free speech or that more of us spend our summers in the corporate corridors of Wall Street than on freedom rides to Mississippi. And yes, TV watching is up, video games consume our time and hands and, despite the best efforts of organizations like MTV's Rock the Vote, too many Americans turn 18 without thinking about registering.

Still, such an inter-generational comparison is futile. Many of those who actively protested the Vietnam War had a great deal at stake--the danger facing them and their loved ones was real and immediate. Our generation, however, grew up during a relatively peaceful period, marked by the end of the Cold War. We are in the midst of an unprecedented economic boom dating back to 1983 (save the brief recession of 1991 which cost George Bush his job); the stock market is soaring; inflation and unemployment are low. And rapid technological advances have made daily life more efficient and more convenient.

Today, effective social action does not always entail public spectacle. Often, as many of us who are politically active can attest, making a difference entails going door-to-door getting petitions signed or phone-banking to raise money. The Internet has become a central medium of communication, moving debate and discussion from microphones and bullhorns to computer screens. We're not taking as many risks with our physical well-being, but that's not because we are afraid or lazy--it is in part because we do not need to take such risks to advance our causes.

We thus reject the contention that today's generation simply does not care. But that does not mean everything is hunky-dory. Far from it. Blacks and whites are still treated far from equally. In many places, the civil rights of gays and lesbians are in question. A women's right to choose is threatened daily. Guns are still available far too readily. And though the economy is strong, Bill Gates and his ilk are reaping more than their fair share as thousands continue to toil from dawn to dusk, day after day, merely to make ends meet.

In fact, the biggest danger of dubbing this generation apathetic is that "apathy" can become a cover for a new, real conservatism--a cold conservatism that threatens to undermine the accomplishments of the last four decades and leave millions of Americans out of the picture being drawn for the 21st century. The '60s were an especially challenging time. Thousands took the future in their hands and made change happen. But our generation has a challenge of its own: how to get outside of ourselves.

Within Harvard this year, there was disheartening evidence that dreams are dying hard. Students elected Beth A. Stewart '00 president of the student body on a myopic platform of "pragmatic" student issues such as wiring the dorms for cable television and winning frozen yogurt for first-years. In that election, students rejected the notion that their representatives ought to engage bigger and simply more important issues: Faculty diversity, the tenure process, the close-mouthed Administrative Board, the morality of University investments. Long-term progress on these big issues takes a willingness to think big.

Some say Stewart's election represented only students' realization of the council's limited potential, not a rejection of progressive politics per se. But evidence indicates otherwise. Last fall's referendum on bringing grapes back to Harvard dining halls was a further embrace of the new, cold pragmatism that has apparently set in among us. Though the debate over unfair labor practices and union organization was muddled by accusations of misinformation, at the end of the day thousands of students voted with their stomachs--an indication of their reluctance to participate in conflicts and debates beyond the Harvard sphere.

This conservative trend is, of course, not unique to Harvard. President Clinton is a "new Democrat" who signed onto an unfeeling welfare reform bill because it was the politically pragmatic thing to do. Congress and state houses everywhere are filled with partisan politicians--Democrat and Republican--who consider polls and party standing more than their consciences when they cast their votes.

Dreams are dying hard for millions of Americans. The problem is not that "Generation X" is apathetic. The problem is that it is too self-interested. Seniors, as you leave Harvard this week, do not fear to dream big dreams--dreams big enough to include others and their needs just as surely as you include your own.