Despite being a prestigious university with a focus on international affairs, Georgetown can feel like an obnoxious high school. Last Sunday, Will Quinn (SFS ’10) commented on this situation in an op-ed in The Washington Post. In his piece, he discussed returning from Iraq after serving as an Army interrogator at Abu Ghraib and entering Georgetown as an older, experienced undergraduate. He expressed frustration over students’ prioritization of individual success and group drinking over more intellectual or socially responsible pursuits. Despite the looming presence of the SFS, he claimed that “people on campus don’t think about the war very much.”
Quinn’s criticism is extreme. While the war in Iraq may not be the topic of conversation every day of the week, Georgetown has not forgotten about it. Quinn complained that only a handful of his classes have curriculum related to the war. Based on my experience, however, most professors are eager to use the war as a context. We discussed the monetary effects of the Iraq occupation in my economics course, and we discussed the War on Terror’s impact on the theme of torture in a Spanish film course. Neither class session focused entirely on contemporary events in Baghdad, yet both recognized and respected the significance of the current situation.
Beyond the classroom setting, Quinn says that he is disappointed with students’ emotional disconnection from the war. Indeed, it must be shocking to return from a combat zone and to be part of a community that is largely isolated from Iraq. While comparisons are often made between the current conflict and the Vietnam War, the latter involved a much larger military force and a compulsory service component. Many students, myself included, do not have loved ones who are serving in Iraq, and most young males are not currently concerned about a possible draft. In many regards, our only interaction with the conflict in Iraq is through the media, which has bombarded us with the same images of chaos and tragedy for the past four and a half years. Quinn’s assessment that students are alienated from this war by the sheer lack of personal ties to it applies to the nation as a whole.
Still, I disagree with his implication that the Georgetown student body is too self-involved and frivolous to have mature feelings and discussions about the war. While election campaigns or troop surges are usually necessary for a spike in dialogue, Georgetown students are paying attention to what is happening. As Quinn noted, we are discerning media consumers who follow global events. Some students support our current policy in Iraq, and some are against it. I have heard many energetic arguments from both sides. Protestors and supporters are not debating in Red Square, but this does not mean that the war has become passé.
Quinn claims that the majority of the undergraduate body is motivated by resume building and partying and that rhetoric regarding social improvement often “rings hollow” to him. However, it is difficult to ignore the efforts of advocacy groups on campus, whether it be Habitat for Humanity, STAND, Right to Life, H*yas for Choice or any such organization. During my time here, I have been continually impressed by students’ passions and focus on progress beyond the front gates. While I have met some students who were just looking for a soapbox to speak from, many more believe in what they were doing.
To be fair, his article is more than just criticism of Georgetown, and he does mention professors and undergraduates whom he respects and appreciates. But instead of individual students or groups, he condemns general collegiate culture for inviting shallowness into the community. Regardless, the article still depicts Georgetown as a silly group of pre-adults without a sense of worldliness or selflessness. Sometimes Georgetown does fall victim to this high school condition. However, I think it is a mistake to disregard the student body when it wants to, and should, be taken seriously.
