By Dan Shannon
In their recent editorial "A Different Cry," the editors of the Argus attempt to further belittle the work of serious activists and foster an already pervasive attitude on this campus that activism is merely an annoyance. I write this wespeak to present the opposing view.

The editors begin by stating that "lately activism has acquired [sic] a bad rep on campus."  According to whom?  Yes, perhaps recent events have alienated the apathetic community at
Wesleyan from the activist community. On the other hand, recent wespeaks and the "A Different Cry" editorial have alienated the activist community in return. If many uninvolved Wesleyan students are annoyed by activists, it is important to note that many activists, who are just as much a part of this community as they are, are equally annoyed by them.

The fact is that a number of students on this campus are predisposed to take offence to activism in all its forms. Many just don’t want to be bothered. However, this is a luxury we don’t
have. The attitude of "This doesn’t concern me" is exactly what allowed slavery to exist in this country and Nazism to thrive in Germany. Granted, genocide and the Justice for Janitors
campaign may not be comparable, but they are both issues that "don‚t concern us."  If it wasn’t ethically sound for everyday Germans to support to Nazis because they weren’t the
targets of injustice, it isn’t OK for us to roll our eyes about the latest campus protest for the same reason.

The Argus editors suggest that Wesleyan activists devote their energy "to a cause that is both nearby and relevant to more than the few who chose [sic] to follow a cause," their point being that Wesleyan activism is self-serving. This is a huge myth. Activism rarely benefits those who are active. No one in USLAC received increased wages or benefits from their successful Justice for Janitors negotiations. No WARN members are being experimented on by Proctor & Gamble. No one in E3 is in danger of being clear-cut. But every day students
from these groups dedicate their personal time to fighting injustices that "do not concern them."  In reality, any injustice in our society affects us all as members of that society.

Instead of these "irrelevant" issues, the Argus editors give the example of the recent anti-violence rally. This rally served a very positive purpose on this campus, especially in light of
recent events. No one would deny that. However, whether or not this is "activism" is a fuzzy point. Women are sexually assaulted every day in all parts of the world, but we only rally when it happens here, on this campus, where we live. This is not to say we shouldn’t; however, we mustn’t confuse activism with self-preservation. We are content to ignore injustice as long as it does not threaten our own personal safety. Sexual violence in Afghanistan is not sufficient to arouse our attention, because it "doesn’t concern us."  When sexual violence regrettably arrives on this campus, we become active, because then we are in danger. It is wonderful that we have the courage and strength to take a stand against sexual violence on this
campus; however, we should also look further.

The Argus editors are asking "What’s in it for me?"  They seem to claim that, for instance, injustice against janitors is not as important as injustice against Wesleyan students, because we are Wesleyan students, not janitors. I doubt very much that the Argus editors would claim that injustice against blacks is less important than injustice against whites, because they are white. Activism is not about protecting one’s own interests. What the Argus editors are proposing is not activism. It is the further protection of privilege and the admission that really, we just don’t give a damn about anything as long as it doesn’t affect us.
 

Shannon is a member of the class of 2003.