Okay, so I realize I'm technically a few days late for April Fool's, so I guess you can just call the headline above a big fat lie. Although give it a day or two and I'm afraid it may just come true. It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, not in an age in which Snooki from Jersey Shore is paid more than literary legend Toni Morrison to speak at the same institution.
When I first heard that a Snooki officially trumps a Nobel Prize winner in the "who is more valuable to a university?" department, my first thought was "Ha! Well that's a creative April Fool's joke." My second thought upon finding out that sadly, the joke's on us was, "There has never been a more sure sign of the apocalypse." Or as one of my wittier friends quipped, "a more shore sign of the apocalypse."
Now believe it or not I'm not going to use this as post to rag on Snooki. What is there to fault her for when she simply did what the American Dream encourages people to do: take the money someone offers you, no matter how questionable it (or the circumstances through which it was obtained) may be, and run as fast as you can. As far as I am concerned, this is a classic instance of "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
So for the record, I'm not hating on Snooki.
But I am going to hate on the organizer of "the game," in this case Rutgers University.
While Morrison was booked by university officials and Snooki was booked by a student programming committee, there's plenty of blame to go around for "Snooki-gate." The only tepid defense I've heard so far from anyone involved is basically "We're just giving the public what it wants."
The problem with that defense of course, is that in this case "the public" we're talking about are not a bunch of high rollers throwing benjamins around a strip club to garner the attention of a surgically enhanced dancer, but students who have paid -- or rather whose parents have likely paid -- to ensure that they receive the best educational experience their money can buy. And I doubt that when they sent junior off to school they envisioned Snooki as being representative of the best educational experience money could buy.
In the big scheme of things it's a lousy $32,000 right? What is that -- the equivalent of a scholarship or two, or maybe a couple of adjunct professor salaries? But I'd argue that the real cost is bigger than that. The greater cost to all of us is the message this whole embarrassing scenario sends.
For the last couple of years one of the most popular past times of national media outlets, Baby Boomer parents, college administrators, professors and others has been to endlessly lament the "entitlement" of Generation Y which has been described at various times as marked by an obsession with fame and easy money without the work ethic necessary to earn either. But then who have some of the very same outlets that have cast a critical eye on Gen Y, including hard news outlets like the New York Times, showered with coverage? The Kardashians and cast members of Jersey Shore. And from what I gather the Kardashians are best known for being pretty and for having a sex tape, and the cast of Jersey Shore is known for drinking a lot, and throwing up afterwards.
But magazine covers are one thing. Institutions of higher learning are another. Or at least they are supposed to be.
So when academic institutions, which are supposed to serve as the last bastion of sanity when it comes to defining intellectual and cultural relevance, officially declare Snooki as more worthy than a Nobel laureate, then why should Gen Y -- or any generation for that matter -- value hard work, intelligence or any of the other attributes that have made Morrison successful? After all Snooki hasn't utilized any of those qualities to get where she is and she's younger than Morrison and out-earning her -- at a university, no less -- the type of institution that Morrison happens to speak at full time for a living. And Snooki's not the only one. Reality stars have not only begun conquering colleges and Hollywood, but have even made it to the Halls of Congress. (Click here to see the 5 Reality Stars who have become Real Stars.) So how could any young person these days be faulted for wanting to skip the debt and misery of grad school altogether in lieu of the easier and potentially more lucrative career route of reality show star/well-compensated but useless media personality.
Maybe instead of constantly hating on Gen Y it's time for everyone to just admit that the game has changed. Because it seems that no one really cares about how Americans become successful anymore--sex tape, tell all memoir, teen pregnancy, drunk driving arrest, mental breakdown--as long as "the brand" becomes interesting enough, to enough people to become a success (whatever that means today.)
So while Charlie Sheen's first live performance may not have gotten rave reviews, he's just one sex tape away from a comeback. Mark my words.
All current and former presidents who think that you have confirmed your commencement speaking slots this season -- you've been warned. You may just find yourself bumped for a narcissistic former sitcom star or a Snooki.
This post originally appeared on TheLoop21.com for which Goff is a Contributing Editor.
www.keligoff.com
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
So Snooki, who is a media personality that we are all at least a little familiar with, gets attention because she is willing to be outrageous and incendiary, as others in this thread have pointed out already. Toni Morrison has much more to offer on multiple levels, but she doesn't "market" herself for maximum dollar value in today's freewheeling system, and therefore doesn't brand herself as prominently. And because of our weakness to pay attention to drama rather than substance, Snooki wins the day.
I am willing to bet that people will not be watching "Jersey Shore" or remembering Snooki long into the future, however. Great literature endures centuries. Reality TV has an extremely short shelf life. The "free market" has more than one value, and some of them last longer than others.
After all, not every value is strictly about maximizing dollars.
She's said that herself. She's said -- "People want me to comment on world affairs and I tell them -- my Nobel Prize was for literature. If you want me to talk about anything else, you're out of luck. I'm not going to present myself as an expert on anything but the field I know."
That's not a direct quote, BTW, just a paraphrase of what she said. But those were her sentiments. She doesn't sell herself as an all-purpose genius, just as a genius in literature.
Such sentiments would explain why her speaking fee might be low. Literature is a highly specialized endeavor and I don't think most college graduates want to hear about how to write a fantastic and successful literary novel.
Most college graduates will never aspire to writing a literary novel, after all.
go back to faux.