Wherever they fall on the political spectrum, radicals aren’t hard to find on campus. Most students probably ignore the figures shouting about this injustice or that and choose to continue on with their daily business rather than be bogged down in the ideological quagmire that is extremism. Yet, invariably, some people are attracted to a radical message.

Let’s be clear: I respect the role of radicals in our society, and I recognize their right to speak on campus. In fact, I celebrate that right. It’s a valuable reminder that we in the U.S. have the freedom to be heard, regardless of our views.

Yet, I wonder whether being heard is exactly what some radicals have in mind. The buzzwords — let’s all remember “dictatorship” — that so often riddle their arguments serve only to alienate anyone who isn’t exactly in tune with whatever espoused view.

Shouldn’t the purpose of radicalism be to intelligently preach a message that isn’t often heard whereby prompting critical discussion? If people automatically turn away, how can they question their cozy and unchallenged lives?

It’s possible to be radical in the truth, and there are many political extremists who voice their views in a relatively logical manner. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are both prime examples of intellectual radicalism, politics of a breed that carefully evaluates everything that’s being said.

Opposite of this, however, is what I’ll call common campus radicalism. This is the self-perpetuating strain that thrives on being seen, not heard, because it relies on shock and awe: It’s pure spectacle. Much like their mainstream opponents, radicals of this strain are preaching an unquestioned doctrine; it’s just one that doesn’t happen to be in vogue. Naturally, while the weather is warm and the new students are searching for their niche, groups like this occupy every street
on campus.

Exactly how much critical thought do these radical groups, many of which are student-run, put into
their messages?

The Pro-Life Student Coalition, for example, invokes “Christian Tradition” to campaign against “infanticide.” Presumably this is because no secular power would ever dare to combat the willful slaughter of newborn children.

The Ayn Rand Study Group, for its part, disregards the politics of its eponymous heroine by cheerily offering free pizza and prizes — or, to quote directly from the group’s Facebook posts, “FREE PIZZA AND PRIZES!!!” — at some of its events.

And of course the Minnesota Autonomous Radical Space collective must conveniently overlook the fact that, on campus at least, it remains autonomous and anarchical only after having been granted permission to exist by a university that annually receives millions of dollars in government
funding.

When it comes to radical groups like these, what they don’t say is often as important as what they do. Critically evaluating the presuppositions and omissions in their arguments can elucidate both the strengths and shortcomings of their messages. A little critical thought can have the power to change a person’s political perspective — yes,
even radically.