FOR THE LONGEST TIME, apathy has never been clearly defined.
What are the grounds which qualifies a person to be apathetic? Is it simply because the student was not able to attend? Do we call someone apathetic because they chose to keep silent rather than speak? Is apathy all about lack of interest? Is it about fear to get out of their comfort zone? Is it non-involvement?
How do you then account for the students who cannot participate in an activity because they have to hurry out of school so they cannot be late in their work? How do you account for the students who were not able to attend the activity because they need to do a project? And if you want to contend about the election, how would you explain the students who chose not to vote because the leaders who are running are calling them apathetic? What about those who did not vote because they lost hope in the very institution that must empower them rather than call them people na walang pakialam? What about those who got so irritated because of the delays in the election?
You cannot just label the things that you itemized as apathy, but if you insist, fine. Take note however, that because of its repetitive usage in school politics it has now evolved as something negative and derogatory on the part of the students.
The inability to clearly define apathy is the problem! The people who insist on calling students apathetic are the ones building the culture of apathy!
Another thing, as a leader, it is our duty to believe in the potentials of the people who we chose to serve. Now, don't you think that there is something wrong in calling the people who you are supposed to serve apathetic? How could you make them follow you if you keep on insisting they are apathetic. Did we even take the first step in understanding these apathetic people?
Calling our co-students apathetic is a way of projecting our failure to understand their concerns and needs as students. They lack interest because we were not able to whet their interest. They do not want to get out of their comfort zone because they are threatened every time they do. They are passive because they do not see how our projects will benefit them. They are apathetic because we are apathetic of their needs!
Again, the ivory tower syndrome. We always say that we want to serve students, but we put ourselves in a tower way up high that they have to reach us instead of reaching out. Why don't we try to immerse ourselves in these people we call apathetic. We might learn a lot.
Let me reiterate my point. We cannot just go out there and call people apathetic. We are leaders and we serve. It is never right the call the people whose rights we protect and who we have chosen to serve as apathetic. Calling them such without even knowing their motivation and reason is nurturing prejudice.
Again, Ateneans are not apathetic. You may ask me then what is the problem?
We, leaders, are the problem.
Paul Francis Lagarde was a BSE-Physics Student. He also was the elected Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Supreme Student Government (SSG). This Washday article was published on the August 2010 print issue of ThePILLARS.
