The events unfolded quickly. At about 9 a.m., I had already received two texts about the incendiary op-ed in The Crimson. By about 3 p.m., I was being invited to rallies. Students outraged about the state of mental health services at Harvard, unconcerned with the selection bias inherent in “I Am Fine” and “In Sight, Out of Mind,” vowed to avenge the perceived negligence of the university. Picketing outside University buildings the next day, the mental health issue looked poised to take off. The Crimson’s weekly Roundtable asked the pointed question, “Do you think that Harvard has serious mental health deficiencies?” The irate student body was up in arms.

The lack of introspection in the article was troubling—the anonymous “In Sight, Out of Mind” author largely shied away from discussing how Harvard’s students engenders a culture in which insecurities are exacerbated. Weeks later, now that the dust has settled, it is easy to draw a larger lesson from “In Sight, Out of Mind”: Social activism at Harvard is a tepid shell of what it used to be.

This trend is not unique to Harvard, but a national phenomenon. Since the Vietnam War, when American citizens everywhere protested in the streets about the war and student outcries on campus carried the same vigor they had over civil rights a decade earlier, the mood of the country has shifted dramatically. A rebirth of political cynicism has turned people off to the idea of true protest. Occupy Wall Street notwithstanding, America’s hoi polloi have reluctantly acknowledged that change is made with lobbying and special interest groups, not Molotov cocktails and protest marches.

Activism, by nature, is diametrically opposed to Harvard’s hypercompetitive culture of progress and resumes. Activism is a long and patient process; Occupy Wall Street lasted for months without an actual resolution in favor of the protestors, and union negotiations can go on for half a year without any progress. Common examples of activism—anti-abortion groups, women’s equality groups, homosexual rights groups—have struggled for decades without getting the concessions that they desire. That’s not to say that these groups are in any way incompetent or lazy. Activism requires a devoted time commitment and many hours spent at the bargaining table or in the legislative office, trying to help a contract or a bill secure enough to be a victory and a compromise—achieving that elusive feeling where everyone wins. At Harvard, where immediately tangible achievement is lionized, such work is a foreign concept.

Activism comes with a few social demerits. Careers in activism aren’t immediately appealing to the stereotypical student looking to become instantly self-sufficient after college. They are even less attractive to students faced with onerous student debt or preexisting poverty. What’s more, conservative students may be turned off by the preponderance of liberal activist causes on campus. Harvard’s small social activist scene is very slanted towards stereotypically liberal causes; labor rights and environmentalism, two prominent campus issues, are connoted liberal topics. In fact, few conservative activist groups, for whose causes the liberal student body shows significantly less sympathy, exist at all.

The student body has shown the ability to coalesce over an issue—student support of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers and the “In Sight, Out of Mind” piece demonstrates a collective desire to defy the University—but sustained protest is generally frowned upon. After a simple cost-benefit analysis, activism simply doesn’t fit into many Harvard students’ schedules. Pre-professional programs and challenging academics beckon; varsity athletic teams and student publications leave students too tired to protest on others’ behalves.

Gazing in the rearview mirror, my guess is that “In Sight, Out of Mind” has a similar future to “I Am Fine.” Both serve as consistent reminders of both a cause most students feel strongly about: the care of those with mental afflictions. However, both also remind us of the whimsical nature of our activism on campus. While mobilizing around an incendiary piece is easy, sustaining that drive is much more difficult. Lost in the rage against the University was the potential for other student health groups to work with the University to fix some of the issues brought up in “In Sight, Out of Mind.” This cooperative version of activism is more at odds with the modern conception of the word than its combative history. To say that Harvard students are too apathetic for activism would be wrong, but arguing that they are simply too busy is similarly incorrect. The reality splits the difference; for most, activism just isn’t worth the time it takes.

David P. Freed ’16, a Crimson sports writer and editorial comper, lives in Wigglesworth Hall. Follow him on Twitter at @CrimsonDPFreed.