This week, 13 members of the Harvard class of 1967 sent a letter to President Drew Faust regarding a perceived lack of activism opposing the Iraq war on the Harvard campus. In the letter, the alumni asked Ms. Faust to create a task force in order to unearth the root cause of "widespread apathy and political indifference of the student body at Harvard." The letter cited, among other reasons, Harvard has the largest financial endowment in the country and therefore should have no monetary excuse for pandering to the prevailing "political mood in the USA" by not encouraging opposition to the war through institutional measures — such as placing greater importance on political activism during the admissions process and creating an activism task force.

Oh, the irony.

With this letter, these well-intentioned children of the "love generation" have promulgated an ironic solution to institutional political injustice — they have demanded institutionalized dissent.

Indeed, 40 years ago campuses across the country were simmering with outrage and violent reaction that often resulted in vehement protest. The American university was the beacon of protest and political engagement by which the country expressed and gauged its indignation over a futile and drawn-out Vietnam War.

The case was no different on our own campus, where violent and nonviolent protests garnered Madison the activist reputation it still clings to today. As a matter of fact, this university's political engagement resulted in one of the most serious terrorist attacks in the country at the time, when in 1970 four UW students inadvertently killed a fellow graduate student by bombing Sterling Hall. This very paper was founded in the late '60s on the premise of providing an alternative voice to balance the extreme sentiments of the anit-Vietnam protesters of the era.

But now? Where are the protests? Where is the outrage? Is Iraq not our generation's Vietnam as the Harvard alumni and so many others have said?

From John Mellencamp to the aforementioned Harvard alumni to our own dean of students, this generation's lack of protest and seeming complacency in regard to the Iraq war has continually been interpreted as apathy by previous generations. Many of us, myself included, would beg to differ.

In response to the Harvard alumni letter, the university's student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, published an editorial saying while they "appreciate the members of the Class of 1967's offer of informed advice concerning the nature of protest, we respectfully decline. We are doing just fine on our own."

The editorial piece appropriately pointed out the absence of a draft in this era necessarily makes political debate and involvement a different enterprise. The motivations that drove college protesters of the 1960s into the streets are certainly not the same as those that drive today's students; engaging in dialogue and arranging peaceful protests seem to suit our generation's palate much better.

Additionally, leaps in the media industry have not only allowed for better transmission of public information about the war, but have provided a forum for debate and opining that was lacking in the 1960s. This very opinion page, for example, is evidence of just one outlet students take advantage of in a way that might be less visible, but might also be more pragmatic and effective.

To be sure, though, this generation's student involvement is not limited to opinion pages and blog posts. The University of Wisconsin Campus Antiwar Network, for example, recently proposed a plan to bring displaced Iraqi students to this university in an effort to raise awareness about the dire circumstances some students face in Iraq and to help the cause of those who have been most negatively affected by our military involvement. To label this sort of student activism as apathetic or in some way inferior to the protests of the 1960s is, as the Crimson editorial said, simply unreasonable.

While the Vietnam War and the Iraq war certainly share the qualities of being unwinnable and utterly disastrous — those of generations past must understand it is the nature of the war and not the nature of the activists living in the war that has elicited such a seemingly tranquil resistance.

What hasn't changed from Vietnam to Iraq, however, is that human beings, this generation or any other, are overridingly self-centered. Without a draft, there is no draft to oppose. Without an immediate risk to the individual, this war seems distant and removed. And while you, or a frustrated group of Harvard alumni, may think this generation's output is nothing more than a result of apathy, we know it as the same self-centered aspect of human nature that once drove students to the streets.

Andy Granias ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.