In the lexicon of the '90s, "pragmatism" has emerged as one of the most popular words. As the conventional wisdom has it, ideology is out and pragmatism is in. Radicalism has been replaced by realism, dogma by day-to-day action. Pragmatism has been used to explain everything from economic reforms in Eastern Europe and communist China and the shift of power away from Marxist apparatchiks, to the 1992 victory of Bill Clinton and the centrist tilt of the "New Democrats."

Indeed, Harvard has itself endorsed this assessment of late 20th-century thought. In an interview with Perspective, the campus liberal monthly, Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III links the current political climate on campus to "Reagan-era pragmatism." Today's students, according to Epps, eschew protest in favor of service: "They do have a con-science, they want to help those less fortunate, but their methods will be more pragmatic and not filled with risk-taking."

Certainly there is some evidence to support this position. Last November, students voted by a narow margin to end Harvard Dining Services' participation in the United Farm Workers boycott of California grapes grown on non-unionized farms. Beth A. Stewart '00 won election as president of the Undergraduate Council in what many interpreted as a shift away from the council's advocacy of controversial, if primarily symbolic, progressive positions over the last two years. And the Yard has not witnessed a large, '60s-style student rally since the battles in 1996 for comparative race and ethnic studies courses and for the autonomy of the Philips Brooks House Association.

Yet the seeming consensus about the new "pragmatism" of campus politics is a poor excuse for the nefarious impact of political inaction. Pragmatism, the new word of the moment, is becoming at best an excuse for resignation and at worst a justification for apathetic disregard for issues of justice and equality inside and outside Harvard's gates.

It is undoubtedly true that the slogan-chanting, building-seizing radicalism of 1969 is a thing of the past. And Epps, in his interview, appropriately notes that the movements for withdrawal from Vietnam and University divestment from South Africa were largely elitist in their sources and support: of the students who occupied University Hall in April 1969 (in the process of forcibly ousting Epps, then an assistant dean of students, from his office), "there was only one scholarship student," Epps informs us. Epps believes that the campus has seen two major cultural shifts: one in the late '60s, from a culture of solicitous accommodation between faculty and students to a culture of contrarian resistance, and one in the early '90s, from political activism to the new pragmatism.

We believe that the new move to "pragmatism" is rooted in economic, rather than cultural, forces, and that it represents not an innocent shift in student priorities but a dangerous abandonment of progressive concerns. The growth in professionalism and the perceived decline in student activism have manifold causes. Educational costs have skyrocketed, leaving students with record debt burdens and tightening the pressure on middle-and working-class families.

Traditional careers like academia and law have seen a surfeit of new entrants. With the crisis in health-care costs, even the stability of medicine as a career seems in doubt. And the perverse outcome of America's obsession with higher education has resulted in a race among all for post-baccalaureate credentials while primary and secondary schools in urban communities stagnate, restricting the pool of students qualified to apply to Harvard.

What do these shifts mean for everyday life at Harvard? They create a disturbing tendency toward complacence and silence. Scraped into the paint of an inner door of the Comstock elevator of Pforzheimer House are the letters "KKK." They have been clearly visible for the last four months. Although some obviously annoyed student scraped over the marks, they are still clearly visible. The elevator needs to be repainted. When this monogram of hate appeared on the walls of Mather three years ago, not only did The Crimson cover the incident, but there was also a forum on race in the house that weekend, a Black Students Association "dine-in" and an immediate repainting of the wall.

Activism is a cyclical campus temperament, and we in 1998 are definitely in a nadir of complacency. During our first year here, outraged by the implications of The Bell Curve, the BSA rallied on the steps of Widener and was joined by other organizations in its efforts. In our sophomore year, the Asian American Association, RAZA and other organizations rallied against proposed cuts in legal immigration and in immigrants' access to social programs.

The Undergraduate Council was in the nascent phase of its move to a more politicized stance--a stance now criticized by students who, like Beth Stewart, understand a matter "that directly affects the quality of undergraduate council or life" (to quote from the council constitution) to include nothing more than which band should play at Springfest.

We recount these instances of activism to counter the dominant idea that the new "pragmatism" is a paradigm shift. University administrators happily contrast the present times with the bad days of the '60s, but does the deafening silence on such issues as affirmative action represent a true philosophical turn to results-oriented social action or rather a moral failure of the campus left?

If anything, the activism of our first two years at Harvard demonstrated to us the potential for informed social activism--when students critically engage University policies or oppressive legislation, poster the campus until their arms hurt and work to capture the hearts and minds of the Harvard community--yes, even faculty and administrators--by clearly articulating the philosophical bases of their positions, whether it be the dangerous racism of The Bell Curve or the central administration's unjustified efforts at restricting PBHA's autonomy.

Today, by contrast, the campus left largely has not risen to the challege. Meanwhile, graduate programs in California and Texas scale back affirmative-action programs, the U.S. embarks on an uncharted course of welfare reduction in the name of "reform," and the middle class increasingly feels the squeeze from rising economic inequality. The structural forces that have made it more difficult for an increasingly diverse student body to mobilize itself does not mean that students stand unanimously behind a College administration which they continue to perceive as at best distanced and at worst unconcerned with student welfare. And "pragmatism" demonstrates its emptiness if it means ideological and practical vacuity rather than a renewed commitment to engaging a very astute audience, the Harvard community, with the broad vision of a progressive agenda.

On campus such an agenda would include, at the very least, attention to the effects of randomization on the experiences and quality of life of students from diverse backgrounds, a reinvigorated effort to bring ethnic studies courses to the FAS curriculum, a savvy ability to use the tools of information technology to inform the oblivious, and, yes, a vocal and activist Undergraduate Council willing to use its Harvard moniker as a bully pulpit on which to speak up for progressive causes, whether it be the plight of migrant farm laborers or Harvard's egregious and covert land acquistions in the working-class community of Allston.

Like the national left, campus liberals must organize: the success of past issue-specific efforts--whether through petition drives, rallies or educational campaigns--testifies to students' enduring capacity to empathize if they are informed and made aware.

Vigilance on campus imbues us with a sense of mutual responsibility for the University community and society at large. The torch of activism must be kept burning from generation to generation. We are in a lull now, and hope that the classes of 2000 and 2001 soon become uneasy by the current quiet, which is no doubt only the calm before the storm.

For the diversity which Harvard repeatedly praises to become invested with meaning rather than pageantry, student leaders must harness the diverse resources of students into coalitions that can act on issues of broader social significance even as they individually engage in group-specific concerns. Let us be alert now rather than allow the doctrine of "pragmatism" to become a shallow cover-up for political dormancy.

Sewell Chan '98, a social studies concentrator in Quincy House, was president of the Harvard-Radcliffe Asian American Association in 1996 and is a former Crimson executive. Bashir A. Salahuddin '98, a government concentrator in Pforzheimer House, is a former chair of the Harvard Black Men's Forum.