The changing social climate of UC Berkeley: activists or those who need to be activated?

Recently, in Berkeley, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement that took place during the 1960s, with campus-wide events hosted by a variety of clubs and organizations. It happens that while walking with a friend out on Sproul Plaza (the center of UC Berkeley’s political and social life, where much picketing and demonstration happens), I asked her if she is doing anything in relation to this event. I wasn’t expecting an affirmative response, for most people don’t really care too much; but to my astonishment, she does not even know what Free Speech Movement was! After talking with her further, I realized that she does not know anything about the history of the University, and especially the activism of the early 60s and the Vietnam era, or even Berkeley’s reputation as one of the most liberal colleges in the US. However, soon I remembered that she is an international student who did not care to do the research on the social aspects of this university and instead applied simply for the university’s reputation as a center of research.

Later, after I came back into my room, I began to ponder about how Berkeley has changed since the 60s. The students are simply no longer the same. Traditionally, those students who are most actively have come from the American middle or lower-middle class, those who have received an excellent education, but also who has an extensive amount of interactions with the socially disadvantaged. The hippies and the liberal atheistic type that abounded during that time no longer exists. (Well, not if you count the large homeless population in the city of Berkeley, many of whom holds liberal views. The student population as a whole do not regard them as a source of enlightenment, but rather as a nuisance with ideas of a bygone era.)

The changing demographic of Berkeley has changed what it means for Berkeley as a left-leaning or liberal university. Increasingly, the student composition of UC Berkeley have come from outside the state and outside the country. Based on the 2014 admission statistics, we see that around 25% are out-of-state students and 10% are international. The differing academic acceptance rates are partially political in nature: since traditionally the UC system depends upon state funding to continue its operations, and therefore accepting an overwhelming amount of in-state students; but now with the continual low amount of state funding, the school depends on out of state tuition fees to cover some of its expenses.  These changes have profoundly changed the view Berkeley students viewed themselves and the world. The background of these students are often upper middle class or even from the very top echelons of their respective countries. This resulted in them being less interested in social issues and more interested in their education or their enjoyment of college, in more extreme cases, they are treating the college experience almost as a 4-year vacation. As a Berkeley student, I note with interest the difference between those who are born in the state of California and those who are from other parts of the US or around the world, who in general are wealthier: students from affluent overseas families would often prominently display their Coach bags or Prada shoes, while those of us of middle or lower class background in California walks around in our simple clothing, with nothing flashy to show.

This changing demographics are partly to blame for an increasing amount of apathy in political and social affairs. Here in UC Berkeley, many of students (from a different location or background) do not know of anything important that’s going on around them, and display no interests whatsoever in local or community issues. On national issues, their awareness is just as low. This results in an interesting situation on campus, where the professors are often far more liberal – being from a different era – and more caring about issues around them than the students themselves, despite the great age differences.

This is a disturbing trend for many reasons. Firstly, college is not simply a place where we learn in a classroom, despite the importance of it. Most of us learn through interactions with others and caring about the community is the first step in learning what it means to be a member of it. Caring about issues at hand – whether it is immigration reform or the Keystone pipeline – should still interest us. And interests frequently lead to social change. Moreover, Berkeley is a place where we prepare future leaders who have ideas on how they want to change the world. How can we accomplish this without have an activist student body? Student activism is not limited to picketing and sit-ins, but also in talking with those in a position of authority, writing about issues they care about, make their voices heard on social media and so much more. Every student should have an activist part within them, and college is the best time to discover themselves and act on their activism.

What should we do to change this? By no means do I suggest that Berkeley stop accepting students from other locations or those above a certain level of income; the diversity is what made us who we are, and we should keep it that way. But I do think that we should encourage activism among the students by offering more selections of classes or programs whereby we can learn about contemporary issues and provide forums in which students can explore more. Perhaps, even in the college admission processes, we can weigh more portions on the activism aspects and look for students who demonstrated potential for activist changes. This way, we can ensure that our University continues to be not only the top school for education, but also continue as a place of student activism.