The Great Servers

The Great

Servers while only two faculty members have endorsed the group-the rest are “probably afraid to reveal themselves”-students were very receptive to their September 11 vigil and support-the-troops rallies. He suspects most students are probably sympathetic, but, like certain faculty, reluctant to come forward. And at Arizona State University, senior Oubai Shahbandar’s new anti-terror group hosted anti-radical Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes on the second anniversary of September 11. Shahbandar, who was born in Syria, says he’s taken a lot of flack from Muslim and Arab groups for his strong support of America. But he remains undaunted, insisting not only that his fellow students are open to what he has to say, but that many Arab-Americans across the country are sympathetic to his message as well. Iranian-born Ensieh Sarrami, a senior at Boston College, thinks her origins make students more receptive to her pro-war-on-terror views. This year, she wants to use her position in student government to influence campus-wide sentiment on the war, and eventually start a group of her own. Like many of the others, she observes that students are more and more distrustful of the radical Left: “If you’re actually fighting for democratic values, you can’t buy into the idea that people who died on September 11 actually deserved it.” Sarrami recently traveled to Israel, where she participated in a seminar run by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. She says she used to be “quite liberal”-and staunchly antiIsrael-but that September 11 forced her to confront the brutal reality of terrorism. As for her ability to change minds at BC, she says, “It’s going to be a hard battle, as on any campus, but I think that if you relate to people, you can reach them.” Yes, these students are nothing if not optimistic. They do gamer support from national organizations such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Empower America’s AVOT (Americans for Victory Over Terrorism), which brings an all-star line of speakers to campuses. But AVOT’s executive director, Seth Liebsohn, who is also director of policy for Empower America, says that it’s the students who reach out to him, not the other way around. “September 11 changed a lot,” he says. “Younger students saw it for themselves, not through the eyes of their professors. Now they’re looking for a defense of democracy, and they’re often not finding it in academia.” But rather than rely on national groups and politicians to bring their message to campus, the students I spoke to believe that the battle for student hearts and minds is above all theirs to fight. And they’re convinced it’s a battle worth waging. It’s still difficult to tell whether this optimism is justified. But whether or not these groups succeed in luring their peers from the radical Left, there are reasons to believe that their efforts bode well for the future of universities and perhaps of the country. There are striking similarities between their burgeoning anti-terror, or prodemocracy, movement and the anti-Communist movement that shaped some of today’s most important thinkers and leaders. Both began with a reaction to the illiberal tendencies of the American Left, and both emerged deeply suspicious of the academic world and elite opinion more generally. Most important, both saw the difference between the rhetoric of tolerance and human rights and the reckless politics of the rhetoricians. If nothing else, then, the next generation will have learned to be suspicious of rigid ideology, and that’s already a good sign for both scholarship and politics. NR For applicants, ‘community service’ is de rigueur-and often baloney “I’m setting up a nonprofit to help at-risk youth attend college.” “That’s great,” I replied. “How are you going to fund it?” Pause. “That’s kind of the problem. I don’t really know how to get any money for it.” I was speaking with a certified “young leader” of the sort one meets at student leadership conferences. He knew very well that it would be extremely difficult to get a new nonprofit started, and that he could accomplish much more at a preexisting charity. But he went ahead anyway. This kind of conversation is very common among undergraduates and college-bound high-school seniors. Set against calls from prominent figures on both left and right to make “community service” a nationwide requirement for graduation from high school, stories like this should give us pause. It is one thing for society to appreciate community service, but quite another to require it. Where it is already in place, mandatory service often contributes to a culture of hypocrisy. It can undermine young people’s respect for and interest in genuine volunteerism. To understand this darker side of student volunteerism one need look no further than the admissions office at any major university. Students get into top colleges through hard work and by learning the tacit rules of the admissions game. Genius is rarely the secret of entry. Admissions officers demand not only perfect grades but also prodigious extracurricular or athletic achievements, and community service. Insiders like to call this mix “the triple S,” for “scholarship, sports, and service.” In other words, if you haven’t done enough hours collecting dimes to save the whales from hungry Icelanders, then you had best play the cello like Yo-Yo Ma, and be a mean lineman to boot. It’s good for the best and brightest to feel a call to serve the community. But from this student’s perspective, making service into a virtual entry requirement is a moral trap: What universities look for as a sign of selflessness, students undertake CARLOS RAMOS-MROSOVSKY

CR

About the Author

Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky

Featured Tags

The Great

Servers while only two faculty members have endorsed the group-the rest are “probably afraid to reveal themselves”-students were very receptive to their September 11 vigil and support-the-troops rallies. He suspects most students are probably sympathetic, but, like certain faculty, reluctant to come forward. And at Arizona State University, senior Oubai Shahbandar’s new anti-terror group hosted anti-radical Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes on the second anniversary of September 11. Shahbandar, who was born in Syria, says he’s taken a lot of flack from Muslim and Arab groups for his strong support of America. But he remains undaunted, insisting not only that his fellow students are open to what he has to say, but that many Arab-Americans across the country are sympathetic to his message as well. Iranian-born Ensieh Sarrami, a senior at Boston College, thinks her origins make students more receptive to her pro-war-on-terror views. This year, she wants to use her position in student government to influence campus-wide sentiment on the war, and eventually start a group of her own. Like many of the others, she observes that students are more and more distrustful of the radical Left: “If you’re actually fighting for democratic values, you can’t buy into the idea that people who died on September 11 actually deserved it.” Sarrami recently traveled to Israel, where she participated in a seminar run by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. She says she used to be “quite liberal”-and staunchly antiIsrael-but that September 11 forced her to confront the brutal reality of terrorism. As for her ability to change minds at BC, she says, “It’s going to be a hard battle, as on any campus, but I think that if you relate to people, you can reach them.” Yes, these students are nothing if not optimistic. They do gamer support from national organizations such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Empower America’s AVOT (Americans for Victory Over Terrorism), which brings an all-star line of speakers to campuses. But AVOT’s executive director, Seth Liebsohn, who is also director of policy for Empower America, says that it’s the students who reach out to him, not the other way around. “September 11 changed a lot,” he says. “Younger students saw it for themselves, not through the eyes of their professors. Now they’re looking for a defense of democracy, and they’re often not finding it in academia.” But rather than rely on national groups and politicians to bring their message to campus, the students I spoke to believe that the battle for student hearts and minds is above all theirs to fight. And they’re convinced it’s a battle worth waging. It’s still difficult to tell whether this optimism is justified. But whether or not these groups succeed in luring their peers from the radical Left, there are reasons to believe that their efforts bode well for the future of universities and perhaps of the country. There are striking similarities between their burgeoning anti-terror, or prodemocracy, movement and the anti-Communist movement that shaped some of today’s most important thinkers and leaders. Both began with a reaction to the illiberal tendencies of the American Left, and both emerged deeply suspicious of the academic world and elite opinion more generally. Most important, both saw the difference between the rhetoric of tolerance and human rights and the reckless politics of the rhetoricians. If nothing else, then, the next generation will have learned to be suspicious of rigid ideology, and that’s already a good sign for both scholarship and politics. NR For applicants, ‘community service’ is de rigueur-and often baloney “I’m setting up a nonprofit to help at-risk youth attend college.” “That’s great,” I replied. “How are you going to fund it?” Pause. “That’s kind of the problem. I don’t really know how to get any money for it.” I was speaking with a certified “young leader” of the sort one meets at student leadership conferences. He knew very well that it would be extremely difficult to get a new nonprofit started, and that he could accomplish much more at a preexisting charity. But he went ahead anyway. This kind of conversation is very common among undergraduates and college-bound high-school seniors. Set against calls from prominent figures on both left and right to make “community service” a nationwide requirement for graduation from high school, stories like this should give us pause. It is one thing for society to appreciate community service, but quite another to require it. Where it is already in place, mandatory service often contributes to a culture of hypocrisy. It can undermine young people’s respect for and interest in genuine volunteerism. To understand this darker side of student volunteerism one need look no further than the admissions office at any major university. Students get into top colleges through hard work and by learning the tacit rules of the admissions game. Genius is rarely the secret of entry. Admissions officers demand not only perfect grades but also prodigious extracurricular or athletic achievements, and community service. Insiders like to call this mix “the triple S,” for “scholarship, sports, and service.” In other words, if you haven’t done enough hours collecting dimes to save the whales from hungry Icelanders, then you had best play the cello like Yo-Yo Ma, and be a mean lineman to boot. It’s good for the best and brightest to feel a call to serve the community. But from this student’s perspective, making service into a virtual entry requirement is a moral trap: What universities look for as a sign of selflessness, students undertake CARLOS RAMOS-MROSOVSKY