Sophisticated Ignorance, They Write My Curses in Cursive

            “You guys don’t know anything.” This statement is repeated over and over again in the media, complete with “social critics” who preach with vitriol and condescension that the youngest generation is stupider and lazier then their own generation was. These specific words, by Mark Bauerlain in his book The Dumbest Generation, are not only incredibly insulting, but they are downright wrong. These scare tactics are simply used as moneymakers, to sell books and magazines to the target audience: aging adults. They praise the intelligence of the eldest members of our society, while discrediting the minds of the youth. It is wholly ignorant and disrespectful to throw the misnomer of “ The Dumbest Generation” on to those below thirty; not only is this an argument that has been repeated every generation for hundreds of years, but it is also evident that it is not true. Intelligence is not failing: in fact, in some areas it is actually improving.

            One way to discredit the claim that Millennials constitute the dumbest generation is to simply study the history. Older generation’s claiming that the Youngers are dumber than them is a cycle that is repeated every generation. A prime example of this is in an article by R. Smith Simpson, Are We Getting Our Share of the Best? In it he asserts, “ My initial surprise was to find among the candidates (Americans) an abysmal ignorance of so elementary a subject as the geography of the United States.” Many of those who claim that those under thirty lack the knowledge that they held, would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. They would then be surprised to know that this article was in fact written in 1962, and spoke about their own generation. The constant fretting of the pundits (Source 7) is a cycle whose repetition is as predictable as the changing of the seasons.

            Not only are these arguments trite and unspecific, but they are simply wrong. A study from Stanford University found that people today write more than in generations ever before. And, unlike in previous generations, 38% of writing took place outside of the classroom (Source 7). Additionally, the study found new skills had been learned by students such as online communication and technical literacy. These new online worlds have opened up new arenas of thought, allowing students to, “ dive into a topic or thought.” (Source 3). Not only have traditional skills like writing and IQ not fallen behind, but new skills like technological aptitude have leapt ahead.

            It is clear that the argument that modern critics pose is wrong. Their   judgment of the young adult generation as being the farthest behind intellectually is based on lazy stereotypes and lazy generalizations. As much as they want to see failings in youth, as every older generation has done for centuries, the facts do not support their claim. The Millennials are not only not falling behind, but they are actually learning new and diverse skills through the prevalence of technology. Just because the older segment of society is not able to see change does not negate it. So maybe these critics – so quick to judge – should open up a book themselves.

Money v. Morals

                  The core interests of a school and a corporation are inherently conflicting. A school’s main mission is to give students the best possible environment to learn, while a corporation’s fundamental reason for existence is to make money. Corporate sponsorships have become all too common among schools. They often claim that the reasoning behind their actions is to “support the community.” But why are they really doing this? Businesses view community support as another form of advertising, it is only yet another way for consumerist American values to seep into all aspects of life. Although there are some benefits for schools, such as increased funds, the consequences of theses actions are wholly more impactful: they corrupt essential scholastic morals.

                  Corporations and schools often try to use financial obligations as their basis for infiltrating schools with unwonted advertising. It is true that this often helps; businesses do inject needed funds into schools. In an era in which districts cut budgets with abandon, schools often need all of the money that they can receive. Additionally, these funds help to stave off levees and tax raises for communities. The money schools receive from corporations can go to important aspects of education: new technologies, new athletic equipment, and art supplies.

                  Although schools are often in need of monies, the consequences to this lie in where exactly the money comes from. The corporations whose money is being taken by the school often represent poor morals that should not be advertised in schools. One example of this is the sugar laden drink companies such as Gatorade, that often advertise in schools. Corporations like this promote an unhealthy lifestyle that should no be “fed” to young school-children. Yet another problem with this corporate money is that it often requires forced advertising in schools. This is true for Channel One, which supplies televisions in return for a required 2 minutes of commercials and a news program. This is simply untoward. Children are required by law to attend school; therefore they have no choice as to whether or not they want to be exposed to these corporate messages.

                  The debate over school district’s acceptance of corporate monies is one of morals versus practicality. While it is true that the funds schools are given are often quite wanted, this does not negate the school’s responsibility to provide a healthy environment for their students. The school cannot give up its morals for money. The corporations who give money to the schools have conflicting interests with the school district. For a school district, a bastion of education and an upholder of morals, money should not be the final word.

Freedom over Safety

As a human race we often find ourselves caught between the conflicting desires of freedom and of safety. Though rhetoric and the pulpit preach freedom, often this is simply superficial. When given the choice between freedom and safety, society often claims to value freedom above all else, but it is often safety that we are most drawn to. Security wins. This mentality proliferates in contemporary society. From the many government security conflicts like the NSA, airport screening, and finally whole government concepts such as communism, humans preach freedom but choose security. 

            In many ways 2013 has been a year of compromised personal freedom. Or at least, Americans finally found out that their freedom was compromised. This year multiple leaks of national security have divulged that the government was keeping track of civilian phone records. The “spying” was controlled by the national security administration, NSA. On television and newspapers, pundits have attacked President Obama for the perceived injustice. But yet, despite the talk, many Americans are surprisingly all right with it. Although it is uncomfortable to think about, this type of screening is legitimately used to protect our national interests and find terrorism. With memories of the terrible terrorist attacks that America has endured in the last decade, from 9/11 to the bombing of the Boston Marathon, the need for public safety has justified a compromise in personal freedom.

            Not only has the government held secret programs like the NSA, but there have also been transparent reductions in personal freedom for the sake of national safety. This is only too apparent at the airport. Due to previous plane hijackings and terrorist attacks, increased airport security has been implemented. Full body scanners, pat-downs, and strict restrictions on carry-on items are just a few of the flying restrictions. Honestly, one of the most popular American past-times is to complain that flying is “not what it used to be.” But yet, if these security measures can prevent another breach of national security, they are completely necessary. We may talk about how inconvenient it is, but the reason that these measures are in place is because safety outweighs expediency.

            On a larger scale, the entire economic and political system that is communism may be the grandest example of our human desire to value protection over liberty. After sweeping the globe in the twentieth century, communism is still paramount to countries such as China. The argument many present against this system is that it takes away personal freedoms and breeds laziness and state dependency. If that is true, then why is communism ever used? It is because our core human fear is failure, and what we crave is the freedom from failure – safety.  Millions of people around the world have been willing to give up their own political and economic liberties in return for the knowledge that they will never go hungry, that they will never be out of work, that they will be safe.

            It is all too easy to preach freedom; it makes fiery words and ignition. But as humans we have agreed time and time again to voluntarily give up our own freedom in return for security. From private American concerns, to universal political movements, the winner is clear. It is the need for safety that ultimately has trumped, and won out, over human history.