Campus activism has had a resurgence in recent years, with students responding to crises in the economy (the Occupy movement), in society (the new culture wars), and in politics (with the election of Donald Trump). Those activists have been derided as “snowflakes,” who can’t handle opposing viewpoints, or bullies, who shout other people down.
But Jerusha O. Conner, an associate professor of education at Villanova University and author of The New Student Activists: The Rise of Neoactivism on College Campuses, argues that the current generation of activists is far more varied and thoughtful about its activism. To a great extent, she writes, they are responding to the emergence of the “neoliberal university” — providing job training and other individualized benefits, rather than nurturing the public conversation for the good of democracy. These neoactivists, her research shows, are learning how to turn the competitive college environment to their advantage: They harness their role as consumers of higher education to push for change.
Conner spoke with The Chronicle about her study of student activists and the support these activists need from colleges, how that can enhance the educational experience for the students involved in protest, and why administrators should tolerate a little dissent.
How has the retreat from college as a public good driven the new activist era?
The neoactivists are responding in some cases to tuition hikes, to student-loan debt, and to the crisis both have caused for many people thinking about attending college. They’re trying to protect their institutions from these neoliberal pressures as well as change their institutions. They are interested in amplifying higher education as a civic good. So they’re drawing attention to higher education’s responsibility to society to produce citizens who are thoughtful, who are engaged. Drawing attention to its responsibility to its workers, to its local community, to generating knowledge that can be used to improve society.
Many academics fret that students care more about college as a gateway to a job rather than something that will help them think broadly.
Students are pretty savvy. They understand that colleges are viewing them as a consumer, as a customer, as potential alumni who will have this return on investment and want to give back to their institutions. And so students in some cases leverage that, but they’re using the master’s tools to try to deconstruct the master’s house. Many of the activists in our study derived their power in part from being able to position themselves — and acknowledge that the university is positioning them — as consumers who want to be pleased.
How are today’s student activists similar or different from the student activists of past eras of campus protest?
We think back to Kent State as probably the most dramatic, but students in recent years have been pepper-sprayed on campus for their activism. They still face threats of expulsion or disciplinary sanctions if they don’t disperse from a sit-in, for example. That institutional resistance has been the same across generations. The most notable difference for today’s student activists, who are aware of this past and pay homage to it, is their intersectional perspective. More than half of the students in our sample identified seven or more causes they were pursuing simultaneously. Instead of seeing themselves as single-issue activists, they have this intersectional perspective on how issues connect and reinforce each other. So there’s greater solidarity, greater attention to coalitions across issues, than there was in the past.
How do conservative student activists differ from those on the left?
We have very few conservative student activists in our sample, so we couldn’t draw meaningful statistical comparisons. But in many ways the conservatives did not differ from their liberal neoactivist counterparts in terms of their use of strategies, like protests, letter-writing, online advocacy, their involvement in campus-based clubs, national organizations, or the emphasis they place on the importance of self-care. There were differences in identity. Fewer of the conservative students had a marginalized identity compared with the neoactivists, and they differed in the way they talked about their accomplishments. Conservative students tended to focus on changing individual hearts and minds as a key accomplishment, while the neoactivists focused more on changing institutional policy or public policy at large.
What do you make of the reports of students who shut down lectures by people they deem offensive? And what do you make of the criticism that they can’t tolerate differing opinions?
Our respondents tended to be really interested in having conversations with those who disagree with them. They were seeking out those conversations, they were hosting programs to initiate them. They weren’t necessarily seeking to bring in guest speakers with whom they disagreed, but they were trying to reach students and professors on campus to have those conversations. And they talked about them as important experiences intellectually as well as emotionally — how scary it was and how emotionally fraught it could be to participate in those conversations. One respondent described feeling her heart jump out of her chest as she tried to speak up and engage, and feeling such pride that she was able to do it, and what a powerful and transformative moment that was for her.
If you talk to these young people and understand their motives and feelings and the way they’re thinking about the experience, it’s not as simplistic as not being able to handle somebody else’s ideas. These young people are engaging with ideas that they find difficult and problematic, and they’re pushing themselves, each other, and others who come into contact with them to rethink, to interrogate, and to expand our frameworks and understandings.
Is activism an essential part of the college learning experience?
Yes. Activists learn a great deal from their engagement in activism and develop sociopolitically through their experimentation. One of the most striking findings in our research was that very few of these self-identifying activists reported a negative impact from their activism on their coursework or engagement in class. In fact, the vast majority said that because they were engaged in working on these issues, they were actually doing better in their classes, because they were connecting theory with practice, making deeper connections to the material they were reading. Activism was helping them become stronger students and critical thinkers.
Even if activism is a key learning experience in college, do you think most college administrators see it as a pain?
There’s definitely a risk-management culture at a lot of universities right now, which makes activism sometimes seem more like a thorn in the side, or something to be concerned about. But faculty can be very supportive at the classroom level, as well as in governance or showing up for student protests. Some campuses have a strong activist culture and a lot of support for clubs and students who want to attend conferences. At other institutions, that support is rarer, and it’s more difficult for activists to gain any recognition, or to even get a meeting with an administrator.
What should colleges do to support the education of activist students?
Start with supporting investment in campus clubs and providing opportunities for students to attend national conferences. There’s so much learning, connection, idea sharing, and development that can happen there. Another surprising item that arose in our data: the need for strong, culturally relevant counseling centers with accessible hours and rates for students — because activism is emotional work, hard work, and activists who had competent, culturally responsive counselors really appreciated that support network. Those students on campuses where that counseling didn’t exist regretted its lack and felt it keenly.
Given that these activist students tend to see education more as a public good and human right, how might that affect policy-making about higher ed?
Generational change precipitates social change in many ways. Certainly we’re seeing people in the Democratic Party, running for president, rolling out bold plans about higher education that might seem fringe or extreme to some people. But the more time passes, the more likely those ideas will move to the mainstream as these young people graduate. They indicate a strong commitment to remaining involved in the causes they’ve taken up. Activism has always come in waves, so this might fade. But I could see a scenario where we move in the direction of the post-neoliberal university.
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
