Education, Higher; Students -- United States; Universities and colleges -- United States
As a community of consumers merely, a student body is no more
homogeneous than a community of producers. Within the frame of
similarity generated by the condition of dependence there exist both
the formal academic gradations dividing year and year as rank and rank,
and the non-academic but “collegiate” gradations of caste and class,
interest and attitude. Every college, for example, has its tiny liberal
group, its sparse collection of students who trouble themselves with
social problems, international relations, disarmament, and the like.
This group is usually looked upon as a troublemaking nuisance by the
college administration (the high point of this attitude may be found
in the University of Pittsburgh), and as “lousy” by the _arbitres
elegantiae_ of undergraduate opinion. “Political and social agitation,”
declares a Yale senior who had degraded himself by concern with such
agitation, “is frowned upon by undergraduate leaders, and consequently
relegated to the obscurity of almost clandestine off-campus coteries.”
To no small degree such coteries are made up of students who are
working their way through college, and what is worse, Jews count
heavily among them. Yet Jews are the exception that prove the rule.
Between 1920 and 1930, the tradition of a love of learning which they
brought to college has been dissipated. The adult responsibility
which they felt for the problems of their own people and of the
community at large, and which was signalized by their membership in
such organizations as the Menorah Societies, the Zionist, the Liberal,
or the Social Questions Clubs, has been destroyed. As their numbers
grew, their fields of interest and modes of behavior conformed more
and more to the prevailing conventions of undergraduate life. Although
excluded by expanding anti-Semitism from participation in that life,
they reproduce it, heightened, in an academic ghetto of fraternities,
sororities, and the like. And they emulate the invidious distinctions
they suffer from by projecting them upon the Jews too proud, too poor,
or too Jewish to be eligible for “collegiate” secret societies of Jews.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account