Although irony can be a great argumentative tool, it is a difficult strategy to pursue without sacrificing a clear advocacy. This is exactly Toby Bonthrone's downfall in his Nov. 15 op-ed, "The future of 'active citizenship,'" published after the debate between Professor Robert Devigne and Institute for Global Leadership (IGL) Director Sherman Teichman. Bonthrone not only confuses the reader with his unclear sarcasm, but he also misrepresents the side with which he sarcastically "agrees," hyperbolizing and simplifying Devigne's views.
For those who didn't see the debate, the question at hand was whether "global active citizenship is an integral part of higher education at Tufts." Broadly speaking, Devigne spoke against "active citizenship," while Teichman spoke in favor of it.
But it was clear early on that the word "integral" had created an uncertainty over what the implications might be of arguing either side (although making active citizenship a mandatory requirement at Tufts was not considered as an option). In the absence of a clear choice, Bonthrone understandably but confusingly represents the debate as "theory" versus "reality."
I'll confine myself to one example. In an attempt to sarcastically agree with Devigne, Bonthrone uses Marx as an example of the importance of theory: "Indeed, could Karl Marx have contributed as much to our world if he'd been forced to work for a living, or implement his ideas, instead of focusing on finishing his important works while living off Friedrich Engels' stipends? 'Das Kapital' and 'The Communist Manifesto' would have certainly been less rigorous and thus wouldn't have had such a positive influence on the governments of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot."
The first problem with this example is that it's factually incorrect: Throughout his career Marx exemplified a deep commitment to political activism and always wrote theoretically with the idea of practice in mind.
Bonthrone writes as if Marx's theories were made for their own sake, and then twisted into the practice of great historical tyrants. Reading for the irony, Bonthrone clearly believes tyranny is wrong. But it is less clear as to what he believes is the dividing line between theory and practice.
Bonthrone revisits the issue of theory versus reality in one of his closing statements: "...there is no way traditional liberal education could be enhanced or even taken to the next level by IGL or the Tisch College, since theory and reality are often incompatible."
Keeping in mind that Bonthrone's tone is ironic, he seems to be affirming that theory and reality are often compatible. But this discussion of pure theory, as "exemplified" by Marx, and practice, as exemplified by "active citizenship," has no basis without a context.
The Marx example polarizes theory and practice, but without any recognition of the context of the argument at hand: a liberal arts education. Even ignoring the misrepresentation of Marx's career, it is confusing to analogize it to the four years of a college experience.
Yet even if we allow that Marx's career, largely as a radical in exile, is analogous to the study that earns a bachelor's degree, can we really be so extreme as to divide classroom learning from active citizenship on Bonthrone's polarizing model of Marx = theory versus Stalin = practice? What position is Bonthrone defending: the divide between theory and practice or the compatibility of theory and practice? And in any case, how does this translate into a clear position on liberal arts at Tufts?
Bonthrone's argument, therefore, is not only confusing. It is abstract and theoretical in itself, because by analogizing very different cases, it makes sense only on the most general level, and when specifics are given, they don't fit the particular context of Tufts.
We who are privileged enough to attend a university are in a minority, and we need to recognize the inequality of the system of higher education and beyond. College is a period when we should indeed take advantage of this privilege.
To me, our four years at college are like a training period during which students can pursue their interests and get a real sense of themselves and what the future might hold.
Where you take your knowledge from there depends on your goals. But I hope that privileged and educated individuals see that their advantage gives them a chance to help others who don't have the option for higher learning.
If you are one of those who wants to seize this opportunity - and I urge you not to take this as preachy or moralizing - the learning and theorizing of your college years sets the basis for the active citizenship you can accomplish later in life. If you can engage in active citizenship while attending college without jeopardizing your opportunity for classroom learning, then more power to you.
My only concern is that it is a very difficult task to do both simultaneously and thoroughly. As I see it, doing Habitat for Humanity over the summer, rather than hurting you, can only help you gain perspective and learn through experience. Reading Tolstoy all summer will also help you learn in other, very beneficial ways.
Perhaps a mandatory class for freshman that overviews social and economic relations between people and nations in the contemporary world, paired with relevant theoretical writings, could be a way to ensure that all students are educated about the economic inequalities of the world.
Once we abandon the abstract dichotomy of theory and practice, we can see that active citizenship has a basis in theory and is a rich educational experience, just as classroom learning has practical implications.
For those who wish to make a difference or change the world, college can help you learn how to best apply yourself to this great ambition. For those who come to Tufts with no such ambition, the classroom experience may change your mind.
Lucy McKeon is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major.
