Quiet? Maybe. Complacent? Never.

Thomas Friedman calls the current generation of students, "Generation Q," the quiet generation (We are also sometimes called Millennials, Generation Y, and Echo Boomers). He seems saddened by what he sees as a lack of protest and activism in current college students. If the standard for activism is based on when Baby Boomers were college students, then Friedman is unequivocally correct. We are a generation who rarely hosts sit-ins or demonstrations.

Our generation is trying to change the world for the better; we have just learned that one way works better than others. In part it is our baby boomer parents' fault (if it is a fault at all). More than other generations, we have learned that arguing with our parents works better than a full rebellion. A USA Today article says "Generation Y is much less likely to respond to the traditional command-and-control type of management." "They've grown up questioning their parents, and now they're questioning their employers." As teenagers when we wanted to go out to a party we learned it was more effective to have an "open discussion" (ex-hippie parents like that phrase) instead of sneaking out the window. So we have learned to go through the establishment instead of protesting it. The authority we encounter on a daily basis seems much less authoritative than the one our parents did.

Friedman says that we lack "real activism," epitomized for him by James Meredith stepping in front of an angry mob to end segregation. At that time, that kind of activism was necessary -- there was no alternative. Yet, where is the angry mob for us to step in front of? It's not that the world doesn't have problems, but that as a generation we see another way to fight these issues.

We are a socially-conscious generation. The 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study found that 61 percent of this generation (born between 1979 and 2001) "feel personally responsible for making a difference in the world." Seventy-eight percent believe that companies are partially responsible for making this change. We believe change needs to happen and we believe the system can make it happen.

Call us naïve, but don't say we aren't trying to do our part to save the world. Why is staging a sit-in more to change your congressman's mind more effective than working to become that congressman or woman?

I was talking to a friend the other day about my career plans, which focus on socially conscious business, and she said something that clicked with me, and I believe a whole generation. She said we're all just trying to change the world in our own way. Whether it's by becoming business people, doctors, researchers, teachers, or lawyers we believe we can make a difference in our profession. Yes, we aren't overthrowing the system, but don't think we don't care.

Maybe we are the quiet generation, but if you think that means we're not going to change anything, I think you're in for a big surprise.

Comments

[dogman44]

The trouble with becoming a congress critter or
senator is that you must first be vetted by the
machine you are trying to change! If you run for office in the klan you would be expected to
avow your commitment to racisim. If you run for governmental office you will will be vetted
by your party on your commitment to laissez-faire capitalism and corporate imperialism. The
system is rigged. But we know there is nothing
short of putting our lives on the line that will change it. So we vote in rigged elections
and pretend like we don't notice or care that our voice has been taken from us.

[dougsnj]

I'm a 23 year old college student and I want to say that this is a ridiculous statement. Here this man Thomas Friedman is trying to actually light a fire under our narcissistic, self-righteous generation and you're telling him everything is going to be ok. Do you realize that I asked some people from my college to sign a petition regarding the Jena six and a few of them actually didn't know what I was talking about! It's this type of "don't worry everything will work itself out" type of attitude that plagued generations from time immemorial and is hurting our ability to make a difference now. History shows us that a large portion of dictators come to power through coercion with a population that is mostly indifferent. All I'm trying to say is that there is no excuse to claim that you're concerned about a social and do nothing. Furthermore, bargaining with your parents is a gross misrepresentation to fighting injustice and global issues. You can't bring together national or world leaders and demand a change in the same fashion you'd ask to have your curfew extended to a later time. And if that's what you believe then you're sadly mistaken.

There are those of us, the small number it may be, who let our voices be heard, go to protests and actually practice what we preach. It's shame that the rest of you don’t see the imminence of the issues we face today, we love you're help, but won't sit down without it. Just because civil disobedience is no longer fashionable doesn’t make it any less necessary.

[AsaNisMasa]

I agree, our generation is so absorbed in consumerism that its rare anything really peaks their interest beyond their small communities or entertainment world. Maybe on the Stanford campus students are more politically, socially, and globally astute, but here in the Midwest, you're more likely to find someone who can name 17 different beers than 4 of the 7 supreme court justices.

[Kansas Evans]

Great article! You hit the nail on the head.

[SGGrossman]

Hi, Megan,

"Why is staging a sit-in to change your congressman's mind more effective than working to become that congressman or woman?"

I don't think it would be meaningful to argue that one progressive political tactic is, in some general sense, "more effective" than another. Nor, of course, are they mutually exclusive. But there is an important difference -- one is something you can do now, and the other is something you can do, maybe, "someday."

[jeffmorgan]

oh that's a good point, and relevant now given the urgency required on many issues.