De Oliveira: Who can we blame for not voting now?
Questionable intercollegiate study cites universities for students’ lack of civics knowledge
By Patrick de Oliveria (Contact)
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007
We don’t know jack about civics and it’s all our universities’ fault. Apparently that’s what a recent study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute concluded. The study found that the “average” college senior got a score of 54.2 percent in a civic literacy test. Oh my.
But is there truly something to be concerned about in this study?
First, there is the whole issue of only utilizing a 60-question, multiple-choice test to evaluate a person’s knowledge of something. It’s absurd to think that you can really understand someone’s grasp of a subject through a test, especially one that doesn’t give space for developing and explaining one’s reasoning. Also, knowing dates and names is somewhat important, but they are secondary to understanding a concept.
Second, the ISI is a conservative organization, and its test is clearly biased toward that ideology. At least 10 questions are about economics and some of these are phrased in such a way to support free-market capitalism. Whether this truly has to do with civics is up for grabs, but one can’t help but wonder.
But, lets ignore the ISI’s faulty method. Campuses are hot spots for activism and political activity, but this seems to be conducted by a vocal minority; it is apparent that a large number of college students are uninterested in civic processes and institutions. It is, however, absurd to blame universities for this.
As a matter of fact, universities instigate interest in the civic process. Students are exposed to new ideas—ideas often called subversive by organizations like the ISI—and different people, and with that political, social and culture awareness increases. Whether this is a lasting process or not is open to interpretation.
This happens precisely because in a good university class, the focus shifts from the memorization of names and dates to the nature of ideas and their consequences. When a student studies how a certain structure works, or reasons why it is unjust, it sparks an interest in him or her. Hopefully this interest will evolve into further involvement and questioning so that in the future we can construct a better society.
The reason a large number of students aren’t involved in the civic process has less to do with universities and more to do with upbringing. There needs to be a greater emphasis on civic participation as a child grows up. This includes a greater emphasis on political participation when a child is in elementary, middle and high school. It also includes getting young people involved in politics.
How can this be done? Give their voice power. Why not lower the voting age to 16? Several countries have done this, and a teenager that age already has some sort of political conscience—not to mention that many already are “productive” members of society. Also, how about making Election Day a national holiday? Isn’t there a slight possibility this would increase voter turnout? Actually, the lack of a national holiday just shows that our society values capitalism more than democratic participation. It’s depressing.
So the problem isn’t that young people don’t know enough about civics. Yes, that could also be improved. The main issue is that our society doesn’t trust them to be part of the political process. Once that trust is given, interest and participation will follow together with a healthier democracy.
De Oliveira is a Belo Horizonte, Brazil, junior in journalism, history and peace and conflict studies.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.