There is a very good observation in Robert Weissberg’s modest proposal for taking the wind from the sails of college activists at Minding the Campus:
The impulse to “do good†is particularly common among the young, so it should be no surprise that millions of college students rally on behalf of what they believe to be a “good cause.†What has changed over the last half-century is that the cost of doing “good†has sharply declined. A do-gooder version of Moore’s Law– the number of transistors that can be put on a single integrated circuit (now about 7 billion) would double every two years (or 18 months)—now applies to “doing good.â€
So, for example, a 19th-century do-gooder might volunteer at a soup kitchen, an effort that was personally time-consuming and reflected a limited, locally available charitable options. Merely carrying an “end world hunger†sign hardly counts as “doing good.â€
Over time, the cost of campaigning to end world hunger has declined dramatically. Now just drop off a box of spaghetti at a supermarket collection point or send a check to the Salvation Army. Still, there is some tangible cost, however modest in this doing good. Even an ambitious humanitarian can write more than a few checks or otherwise feed the hungry.
By contrast, contemporary campus-based social justice warriors can be a Dervish on steroids at “saving the world†at minimal cost per cause. All it takes is concocting a list of “good ideas†and announcing it in public. No matter that this make-it-up-as-you-go-along jumble is pure theatrics and the candidates are almost limitless.
That failing isn’t limited to college activists and it’s something I’ve commented on here before. Paying your taxes is not an act of virtue. Supporting political candidates who campaign on platforms of helping the poor is not an act of charity. Being reimbursed at Medicaid rates does not satisfy an ethical obligation to provide care regardless of the ability to pay. The list is endless.
I’m not sure how we twisted ourselves into the pretzel of thinking that being virtuous can be cheap, easy, or comfortable. Is it because we’ve watched too much television? We’ve become consumers rather than participants?
Another one is “they outta pass a law.”
The reality is that many people are passionate about certain issues until it comes time to actually do something. So we get a lot of outrage about gun control, for example, after school shootings, but how many of those outraged actually do anything beyond making their feelings known on Twitter, Facebook or a blog comment?
Change is hard and requires a lot of actual work.
I think there is a psychological factor when it comes to social media. We delude ourselves into thinking that participating in a debate online is “doing something.”
Only the Great Lord Vishnu saves the world as he sleeps.
This could be true, but my personal experience is just a bit different. Our church maintains a soup kitchen. We cook for them when they need help. We don’t have many young people volunteering there, but there aren’t that many young people at the church. (Smallish church.) However, we also volunteer some to cook dinner at a local mission/shelter. Used to do it twice a month, but we are getting old so have cut back. What we see there is that most of the volunteers are college kids.
The real comparison with which we might be interested is what do people do now vs 30 years ago. In the 19th century the wives did not go to work. Once the kids were gone they had lots of time. Same in the 50s. If they are claiming that college kids in the 19th century volunteered at soup kitchens, first I would like to see that data, and second let’s look at the social class of those who went to college in the 19th century. Really, if you want to write an article claiming that the kids today suck, you need apples to apples comparisons. While I cannot vouch so much for the 50s, too young to be sure, I can certainly say that I don’t remember many teens or college students in the 60s putting in the time at soup kitchens and such.
Steve