SFU’s “Radical past” is just that: a thing of the past
Many students at SFU are aware that our school has a certain “radical past.” SFU is colloquially known to be somewhat famous for left-wing thought and intellectuals, particularly in the social sciences. Books have been written about this, and various internet sites also offer opinions. Most interestingly, SFU used the label “radical campus” to describe itself during the 40th anniversary celebrations in 2005.
Many left-leaning individuals and faculty feel like this is a past to be celebrated and affirmed. They take the label “Berkeley North” as a badge of honour, as if campus radicalism is a worthy aspiration for students. This is the same attitude that leads many students and faculty to sympathize with the occupy movement, or worse, the Montreal student protests. Indeed, radicalism holds an almost mystical ethos in modern left-wing thought, and most leftwingers continue to develop a glorious mythology about the protest hippie culture of the 60s. However, the SFU we all know today is a far cry from that past. Students today are most known for their total apathy towards anything political. The concept of a sit-in is laughable, and the idea of protesting something on campus is ridiculous. There are no illusions about how pointless protesting is, especially when it’s always so bloody cold and rainy. The Montreal protests seem more like something out of Egypt or the Middle East, rather than something that could actually happen at a university campus in Canada.
So, is this bad? Should we mourn the lack of radicalism and protest on campus here at
SFU? Should we feel nostalgic about the “radical past?” I give an emphatic no.
The students of today don’t need to be radical. Frankly, they’ve got it pretty good compared to previous generations.
Sure, tuition is a bit more expensive, but part-time jobs and student loans aren’t difficult to find. SFU is well administered, and offers a competent faculty. Most programs are increasingly practical in focus, and offer good options for co-op and international exchanges. In general, it seems bizarre that students would begin to complain.
Life isn’t too bad, and I believe that is the basis for the much maligned “student apathy” on campus.
SFU’s radical past is gone, and that is good. SFU is no longer seen as left-wing. If anything, the business program grabs the most attention at SFU. So much for the glorious radical past; now SFU is all about training future capitalists in the ways of making lots of money. This is also why the “rotunda four” organizations seem like such holdovers from the past: they are holdovers from the past, relics of a bygone age. The SFPIRG and the SFU Women’s Centre don’t make much sense in an age where students aren’t concerned about so-called radical political causes or campaigns. Worse, why would students pay fees to maintain such organizations? Students today aren’t apathetic. Their priorities are different. Most students are at university to improve their lives. They’re concerned, first, about educating themselves in order to be eligible for entry into well paid, interesting and rewarding occupations. They also want to learn more about the world they live in, and they want to find ways to make that world better through service and hard work. They aren’t interested in pushing radical causes or agendas. And frankly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
