The generation that won't make trouble -- for college students

My mother was born in Berlin and narrowly escaped the Holocaust. This Mother's Day, I took her to a movie. It was a huge hit. It seemed to be about black people in Africa. The queue for tickets was long. A young white man was passing leaflets between the lines, urging people not to buy tickets because the film was made in South Africa. Everyone in line probably thought the same thing as me: "It's up to me to see it or not, you don't have to tell me." So nobody paid any attention to him.

When the lights went out and the movie was about to start, two young girls in the front seat suddenly stood up and confronted the audience and gave a loud speech explaining how the film scorned the plight of black South Africans and asked for a boycott. There were boos from the audience, some Shouting impatiently: "This is America; You will protest outside!" Angry voices also shouted, "We paid five dollars for the movie ticket, let us decide whether we want to see it or not!" Occasionally a small voice said, "It would be good to hear what they say!" But the cry of the crowd grew louder: "Get out! Get out! Get out!"

My mother, who was sitting next to me, looked upset. She turned to me and said, "These two young girls are willing to pay ten dollars for a ticket to enter a place where people yell at them -- maybe they're on to something."

In the midst of everyone's applause, the theater staff very roughly showed the two girls away. The lights went down again, but within a few minutes a young man, with a strong British accent, stood up and said, "This is a very racist film --" The angry audience interrupted him. Someone called for the police, but the young man showed no fear and continued to shout, "I'm not leaving until you let me finish my sentence!" The crowd shouted, "Get out! Go away!" Finally, two policemen arrived and showed the guy out with big smiles.

Before the audience had completely calmed down, a bearded 20-something in the back row suddenly stood up and said, "No, no, I'm not with them; I bought tickets just like you guys did just to see the play. It just occurred to me that maybe we should take a strong moral stance on an issue that affects millions of lives, rather than just being recreational. If people 50 years ago had been as committed to persecuted Jews as these people were, my grandfather might be alive today and not have died in a German gas house." Then I heard a very familiar raspy voice suddenly say, "He's right; You won't tell me to shut up!" I found my mother of sixty-four standing up, facing the whole theatre; Her whole body trembled.

This small story can bring up many controversial issues. For example, do these morally motivated young people have the right to stop others from seeing this "racist" film? If I had been in the theatre, I would have been one of the angry crowds who told them to "go away" mainly because they had no right to dictate my thoughts -- I would have to see the film for myself to decide. Second, if a small group of people who cite "moral sense" can interrupt my film, then a religious group, a political party, a business group, etc., can freely force its ideals, what kind of autonomy does that person have?

The question of right and wrong in South Africa is also a thorny one. Its apartheid policies are now reviled and reviled. White South Africa is a stain on the 20th century. The other side of the story is that if South Africa had black self-determination, the discrimination and slaughter would have been even worse -- look at Uganda! Look at the whole continent of Africa!

But it was the actions of these young protesters that I pondered for a long time in the New Yorker piece. They are not a minority; Columbia University has money invested in South Africa, and its students have demonstrated passionately against the university authorities' "ignorance of good and evil". The young people who were making trouble at the theatre were, in fact, paying five dollars a day for their tickets -- a lot of money for a student; Into the theatre to be booed, and then kicked out again and again. A few of these people, of course, are inevitably motivated by childish heroism or mere playfulness, but most of them are motivated by a moral stand, a stubborn ideal of virtue. Before a man decides to "make trouble" at the theater, he must first have three conditions. First, he cares about the world. Because I care, I pay attention to the plight of black people in South Africa. Second, he can make value judgments. Coverage of race in South Africa was so mixed that he had to decide for himself to be on the side of black and white. Third, he had moral courage enough to motivate him to act. So he went to the theatre to buy a ticket; Five dollars he could have skated with or eaten.

What about our young people? Or, to narrow things down a bit, what about our college students? How many people have these three qualities?

From my limited observation, very, very few. As a matter of social concern, our students live in self-sufficiency within the four walls of the university and do not often stick their heads out. A few months ago, when fourteen provincial councillors resigned en masse, I had quizzed hundreds of students to write down the reasons for their resignations. As expected, a few gave fragmented and vague answers, apparently the remnants of a perusal of the newspaper. Eighty percent answered bluntly, "No idea!" Why not? Lack of interest, lack of care, of course. When asked about social problems, the "beautiful women" on college campuses, chosen by an urban magazine, say sweetly, "How terrible!" Stick out your tongue. There are plenty of such "cute" and "pure" college girls, and they are lovable. Our students not only have a vague impression of the social and political problems in Taiwan itself, but also the international situation outside Taiwan. The famine in Isopia, the coup in Uganda, the guerrilla war in South America, the Catholic Church's stance on abortion and divorce, the military atrocities in the Philippines, and so on do not exist and are meaningless. Without care, there is naturally no need to make value judgments. I didn't know South Africa had a serious racial problem. Of course you don't have to think about who's right, because you can't think about it. Without care, there is no moral courage or moral action. Children in Africa can die, and armies in South America can rape women because it's none of their business. The coal mines of Seamount could collapse over and over again, the ancient monuments of Peachland could be demolished over and over again, the garbage mountains of the inland lake could be burned over again, none of their own business. During the four years of college, there are only two things worth caring about: one is to make good friends and have someone to marry in the future; the other is to do well in your studies and have a satisfactory way out in the future. Concern for the society, the ability to judge right from wrong, and the courage to choose the right are not within the walls of a university. In other words, our young people are naive, simple and obedient; They would never "make trouble" in the theatre.

Why do college students care so narrowly? One of the main reasons was that his environment discouraged, even tried to discourage, his interest in things other than books. There are probably very few parents who haven't said, "Read the book well and don't bother with anything else!" The university used to say that, to prepare for the joint exam. After entering the university, I said this in order to cope with the retention exam, TOEFL, college entrance examination, graduate school entrance examination, etc. The golden advice "as long as you read well, don't worry about anything else" was born in response to the modern imperial examination system. The purpose of reading is to seek skills, used to knock on the door of a layer of examinations. To study philosophy, history, literature, economics, etc., is not to increase the wisdom and solution of life, but to obtain the skills to make a living. Since this technology has nothing to do with one's life, one can leave everything alone. But this golden advice does not stand the test. Under the premise of "leave everything else alone", books are impossible to read well. In economics, for example, a student can explain "inflation" with all kinds of definitions and theories in the textbook, but when asked to analyze why civil servants' salaries should be increased by 8 percent, he turns a blank. Can we say that he has studied well? In literature, for example, he could read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and write a treatise on the relationship between the institution and the individual. But when asked to put forward his views on the Jiangnan case, he turned a blank. Can we say that he had read the book thoroughly? This big world is a laboratory for all kinds of science. The theories and examples that students learn in black and white are still abstract and vague. Only after taking knowledge to the laboratory of life to observe and verify it can knowledge be implemented. To ask our students to shut themselves up in the walls of the university and "do nothing else" is to separate learning from life. It is to separate the swimmer who learns to swim by diagrams on the shore, but does not touch the water, or the anatomist who learns to swim by looking at slides in a dark room, but does not use knives.

Our students will not "make trouble", because "make trouble" first have their own opinion - not newspaper editorial, not the teacher's opinion, not classmates' opinion, but their own opinion. It is very difficult for us simple and realistic students to make value judgments independently. Why? Senior year, began to the three people's Principles. One dreary afternoon, I read a sentence in my textbook: "The Three Principles of the People is the most suitable doctrine for the Chinese people." That's the definitive conclusion. I thought I had missed the part where the editor explained the citations. I flipped through the textbook but couldn't find any explanation. As I sat in front of the book at the age of 17, I felt deeply frustrated: to reach such a conclusion, the textbook editors should first explain what kind of people the Chinese are, then explain how the other doctrines do not apply to Chinese society, and finally logically deduce the conclusion that "the Three Principles of the People is the most suitable doctrine for the Chinese people". But the editors apparently felt that these dialectical processes were unnecessary. The next day, in class, I asked my teacher to explain "why". The teacher was surprised to look at me, a good temper with a smile, replied: "The textbook so write, you back up is. The exam won't ask you why." This little experience was a great setback in my early quest for knowledge. Basically, textbook writers and instructors don't think students are capable of making their own judgments and conclusions, hence the "why don't you ask, just remember my answers" attitude. What they have thus deprived me of is my right to knowledge and my ability to make independent judgments. The way of education has not changed much from the past. Our educators are still used to providing "conclusions" and are still not used to providing "methods" for students to find their own conclusions. There is no better reflection of this phenomenon than the essay questions. For many years, any examination, students always face what "knowledge for the world", "loyalty and courage for the patriotic", "no pains, no gains", "full recruit loss, modest benefit" and such golden advice. To put it bluntly, the so-called golden advice is the "conclusion" handed down by the dead. This kind of conventional topic can shape the student's thinking, make him more closely become a part of the tradition, it has its educational significance. But this kind of transmission of ideas fundamentally does not allow originality, does not allow students to draw their own conclusions. If the educator's real interest lies not in the student's compromise and acceptance of tradition, but in his ability to judge independently, then the same title should arise in the form of a question: "Does no pain really lead to no gain?" "Do you agree that learning is the foundation of life?" Or in a challenging way: "Try to argue that loyalty is the foundation of patriotism." Only in this way, no "established conclusion" ideological training can really stimulate students to observe the complicated world around them with their eyes open, and use their own minds to sort out the clue. When our educators habitually throw away good conclusions, the students lazily accept them as written; He did not have to think and grope so hard.

In our environment, a student who is capable of caring and judging is unlikely to have any moral action. General educators take the attitude of suppressing and resisting students' actions in order to seek the stability of campus. A junior college student was accused of stealing by a classmate. The instructor, under the lead of the plaintiff, did find the stolen goods in the student's bag, but he expelled the student without hearing the defendant's defense. A few bold students stood up for justice and asked the school to give the accused a chance to defend themselves. Whatever the outcome, the school authorities have a firm message for the students who come forward: "Read your book and mind your own business. The one who causes trouble gets demerits." Wonder why our civic ethics class repeatedly teaches students to be brave, to be responsible, to be stubborn, once students practice these beautiful moral ideals, we panic to suppress him? When students complain about the school's measures, they write letters, hold meetings and protest, which is not the best opportunity for civic education to help students learn how to solve problems rationally, fairly and democratically. Why do we instead use demerits as punishment? Means? Is it too high a price to pay to stifle young people's sense of justice for the sake of seeming quiet and stable? Students who dare to express their opinions and take action will, of course, learn to protect themselves after one or two admonitions. He found that society did not want him to have moral courage or a sense of justice.

Our college students are not a "riot" crowd. In the world of exams, parties, and outings, there is nothing worth making trouble about. In a world where right and wrong, good and evil have been decided by Mencius Confucius, our parents and teachers, there is no problem worth rethinking and bothering to judge. There is no room for "trouble" in the environment where we can protect ourselves and make fewer mistakes. Our college students are naive, simple, calm and obedient. However, if "rioting" can also be interpreted as "taking action to change the status quo," then our generation of non-rioting people is something to be worried about. Four years later, he became the salt of the earth -- the salt of the earth who did not know how to care about the earth, who did not judge right from wrong, who did not dare to act! Should the price of buses be raised? I don't know. A pipe burst on the side of the road. It's not my fault. How much taxpayers' money is the public sector losing? I don't know. Will nuclear power plants last forever? I don't know. Should I report my boss for cheating? I don't know. Where is Taiwan going? Don't know, don't know, don't know... A people satisfied with the status quo cannot progress, but to be dissatisfied with the status quo, one must first care, observe attentively, observe and then judge, judge and then act. Caring can be emotional, just a love for the land where it is born and grown, but empty feelings are of no use. It must be supported by cool reason -- strong reason for judgment and action. The current situation in Taiwan is not satisfactory, but many people have begun to act after caring and judging. The best example is the promoters of the Consumer Foundation, who have made a lot of noise. There are many things that need to happen in Taiwan. In the case of women's issues, our existing women's organizations are still at the stage of laying flowers, offering condolences, wearing beautiful clothes and holding charity parties and hugging orphans. In the same social version, we read of a seven-year-old boy scalded to death by his mother, a ten-year-old girl sold to a prostitute, a thirteen-year-old daughter raped and impregnated by her adoptive father, and a thirteen-year-old wife whose ribs are broken by her husband