The capability of a random high school student to affect any of the issues you’ve mentioned is pretty much zero. He can be a foot soldier in an activist army and get some warm fuzzies out of it, but his impact is going to be negligible.
I agree with you. One argument in favor of activism is that, even if it doesn’t effect immediate change, people learn how to become activists (i.e., they get practical training in activism). That’s the typical argument I’ve seen in favor of activism. What do you think of that?
The original question is somewhat of a false dilemma. The student does not have to decide between learning and activism for the rest of the year but for the next hour. Picking up the examples from above, reducing energy consumption is a form of activism—though with the possible added benefit of having more disposable income—and will also inform any later attempts to reduce energy consumption on a large scale, e.g. by seeing how low the convenience threshold for the end user is. Similarly, in the case of road accidents part-time employment as an EMT will inform any later management policy.
So we see that not only do we have to optimise a mix of activism and learning (or more generally work and learning as the whole argument applies similarly there) but we do have to consider that the exact same task might be both learning and activism.
people learn how to become activists … What do you think of that?
I do not value and see no particular virtue in activism by itself. In particular, the kind of activism that a high school student is likely to be exposed to.
I don’t think that’s true. Youth activists have often been very influential in changing the political direction of the country, several times in our history. High school and college aged activists have played a big role in changing policy on issues like civil rights, the Vietnam war, gay rights, and so on. They’ve also played a significant role in recent elections.
To an extent, high school-aged and college aged activists can often do more and have a bigger impact then older people, simply because they have more free time, have less responsibilities, and tend to be less risk-averse about risks like “being arrested”. They also tend to be less tied to the status quo and more able to imagine a world that is significantly better then the current one, which can be important.
High school and college aged activists have played a big role in changing policy on issues like civil rights, the Vietnam war, gay rights, and so on. They’ve also played a significant role in recent elections.
High school students played a significant role in some SNCC civil rights protests, such as sit-ins at lunch counters. In many cities the sit-ins were actually ran and done entirely by high school students. One well known example is that a number of students from Dudly high school participated in the famous Greensboro sit-in.
Edit: They’re only just mentioned in this source, but they were there.
Hmm. It’s hard to say. I think the SNCC sit-ins were a vitally important part of the civil rights moment, though, they played a big role in drawing attention to and eventually ending segregation in a lot of places, and high school students did or helped in a significant percentage of them. High school students played a significant role in the SNCC organization in general.
I mean, it’s hard to say what the overall effect is; that’s like saying “would the civil rights movement has been as effective if there had been a third less protests”. It seems likely that it would not have been, but it’s hard to say with any certainty or to quantify it.
The capability of a random high school student to affect any of the issues you’ve mentioned is pretty much zero. He can be a foot soldier in an activist army and get some warm fuzzies out of it, but his impact is going to be negligible.
I agree with you. One argument in favor of activism is that, even if it doesn’t effect immediate change, people learn how to become activists (i.e., they get practical training in activism). That’s the typical argument I’ve seen in favor of activism. What do you think of that?
The original question is somewhat of a false dilemma. The student does not have to decide between learning and activism for the rest of the year but for the next hour. Picking up the examples from above, reducing energy consumption is a form of activism—though with the possible added benefit of having more disposable income—and will also inform any later attempts to reduce energy consumption on a large scale, e.g. by seeing how low the convenience threshold for the end user is. Similarly, in the case of road accidents part-time employment as an EMT will inform any later management policy.
So we see that not only do we have to optimise a mix of activism and learning (or more generally work and learning as the whole argument applies similarly there) but we do have to consider that the exact same task might be both learning and activism.
I do not value and see no particular virtue in activism by itself. In particular, the kind of activism that a high school student is likely to be exposed to.
I don’t think that’s true. Youth activists have often been very influential in changing the political direction of the country, several times in our history. High school and college aged activists have played a big role in changing policy on issues like civil rights, the Vietnam war, gay rights, and so on. They’ve also played a significant role in recent elections.
To an extent, high school-aged and college aged activists can often do more and have a bigger impact then older people, simply because they have more free time, have less responsibilities, and tend to be less risk-averse about risks like “being arrested”. They also tend to be less tied to the status quo and more able to imagine a world that is significantly better then the current one, which can be important.
...high school?
[citation needed]
High school students played a significant role in some SNCC civil rights protests, such as sit-ins at lunch counters. In many cities the sit-ins were actually ran and done entirely by high school students. One well known example is that a number of students from Dudly high school participated in the famous Greensboro sit-in.
Edit: They’re only just mentioned in this source, but they were there.
http://www.sitinmovement.org/history/greensboro-chronology.asp
I’m not claiming that high school students played as big a role as college students, but their impact wasn’t zero, either.
So, looking back at recent history, what wouldn’t have happened if the high schools students didn’t participate?
Hmm. It’s hard to say. I think the SNCC sit-ins were a vitally important part of the civil rights moment, though, they played a big role in drawing attention to and eventually ending segregation in a lot of places, and high school students did or helped in a significant percentage of them. High school students played a significant role in the SNCC organization in general.
I mean, it’s hard to say what the overall effect is; that’s like saying “would the civil rights movement has been as effective if there had been a third less protests”. It seems likely that it would not have been, but it’s hard to say with any certainty or to quantify it.