Student Activism/Social Apathy

In the late sixties and early seventies, the university was a cornerstone of social action. College students seemed lit up with the passion to create change and reform the way things were in society. Across the nation, there was a liveliness on college campuses, an energy of relentless revolution which that generation is still revered for. On the modern-day college campus, there are no grand riots, protests, or strikes. It is hard to tell if this is an indication of social apathy or if young people have found new outlets for social activism. A structural functionalist would conclude that student activism is still a major component of the university, and that there are simply new ways in which students can demonstrate activism. A critical theorist would disagree, not surprisingly, and conclude that social apathy is at an all time high. Primarily, I would like to take a structural functionalist’s perspective. The University, or perhaps the education system in general, has a unique social system that has become very institutionalized over time. There are defined roles of being a student, a professor, a member of the administration, and a staff member (such as groundskeeper, cook, cleaning staff, etc.). There are standards of how different members of each group should interact with members of other groups, which at times depends of the context of the interaction. Students begin to learn these standards at the earliest age of schooling, which may be preschool at age three. They learn that there is a difference between how they are expected to speak to a teacher versus a cleaning lady versus each other. This fosters specificity over diffuseness, because actors base their actions on the established meaning of their roles. Because of this role-set, the system is mean to be orderly and productive, though productive is a relative term. There are ways within this setup that students may have their voices heard by administrative forces. An example of