TODAY’S generation of college students has been called many names: Generation Me, Generation Y, Generation Google. One particularly biting name that has been used to characterize our supposed penchant for complaining is Generation Whine, a term defined by Urban Dictionary as expressing “the tendency for members of this group to answer the slightest challenge or restriction imposed thereupon with belligerent griping and their general lack of appreciation for the unprecedented quality of life they enjoy.” Pretty harsh.
Yet if the recent upset caused by two football-related events is any indication of the nature of our generation, then Generation Whine seems an accurate enough characterization after all. The willingness that a number of students showed to complain about the virtual ban on Lawn tailgating, as well as the collective dissent displayed in regards to the ban on signs at athletic events are both prime examples of our ability to bitch. Neither, however, are indications of our ability to truly fight for a worthwhile cause.
This is not to say that demanding the ability to express ourselves in spite of an administrative ban on free speech is not a worthwhile undertaking. Demanding the freedom to question and critique is an essential part of any democratic society. Yet many of us seem to find it easier to assert this right at a football game, where the worst criticism we can offer is “Fire Groh,” than to assert this right in other venues.
In a recent e-mail before the Richmond game on Saturday, some self-proclaimed “Supporters of UVA Athletics” referred to protesting the sign ban as taking “civic action as a student.” If this is the extent of our civic action, the University’s student body is in a very sorry state. It is easy to protest something when everyone you know agrees with you and when the consequences of your actions will likely result in nothing more than a polite request to leave the football stadium, or simply to leave your blank sheet of paper outside.
It is much harder to protest the root of that policy — an authoritarian administration that only values student input when it reflects their own goals for the University — because the plan of attack is much more ambiguous, and the end result is too far off to mean much right now. Additionally, the consequences of doing this are potentially much more serious and require more sacrifice on the part of students than merely getting kicked out of Scott Stadium during a less-than-riveting football game. It is relatively easy to give up a Saturday of football; it is much harder to put your academic and extracurricular involvement in jeopardy by standing up to those in charge.
Similarly, complaints arising from the recent ban on tailgating outside of Lawn rooms have echoed around Grounds. Students express a desire to take action against this policy because it represents yet another infringement on their privileges. The loss of these privileges is in part based on the public displays of drunkenness and the physical assault that took place before the first home football game. But students also see it as a belittling punishment reminscent of the days when their parents grounded them for staying out too late.
Yet once again, we have found an easy way to express our rights as students by griping about being told to stay in our rooms. We fail to reflect upon what it means to live in an environment that supposedly supports student self-governance when those in the top levels of the institutional hierarchy have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of respect for that concept. Instead, we come together to fight trivial battles in the name of athletic tradition.
Jamin An, the Chair of Sustained Dialogue and a fourth-year student in the College, suggests that expressing outrage over the sign ban is a safe protest, far less controversial than subjects like racism or lack of institutional access for many students and CIOs. The protests against bans on signs and tailgates are so noticeable because “the issue it is addressing can be visible safely, comfortably,” An says. It is easy to gain favor by supporting a cause in the name of fandom and the Power of Orange.
Collectively, what we lose by doing this is the creation of an ongoing movement to create meaningful changes. These changes include a more open and respectful environment for all communities, an institutional structure that supports various causes and points of view and an equitable distribution of resources when it comes to CIOs and other organizations on Grounds. Our selfishness only hurts us in the end.
Those who witnessed hundreds of members of the student body somberly holding signs in the air, challenging the athletic department to rethink its new policy, witnessed the potential we as students possess to exact more consequential changes. Why, then, do we find it so easy to pack our rebellious spirit away after the game clock ticks down to zero? An says, “People can band together on this, but what aren’t we trying to band together on but should be?”
His question has numerous answers, and it poses a challenge to this generation, whatever it will eventually be called. There are real issues out there, beyond the thousands of cheering, signless fans and lonely Lawnies on game day. Wouldn’t it be nice to be remembered as something more than Generation Whine?
Amelia Meyer’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 11 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
RASHID: Noncitizen students are under attack, and the University must act
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 2 days agoNow is the time to act, proving our commitment by protecting and expanding programs that keep the University open and accessible to all.
