Washington would have been hanged for treason if the revolution had failed.”
So declared American labor activist August Spies, addressing the Chicago court that sentenced him and seven collaborating radicals to hang for their alleged leadership in the 1886 Haymarket Riot.
While history is decidedly uncertain whether Spies actually conspired to ignite the upheaval that killed seven and injured many more, his incisive words continue to resonate with modern significance, at ironic odds with contemporary understandings of the sacrifices revolutionary leadership requires.
Today’s leadership lessons are drawn from an entrepreneurial class that defines itself with a universal company language that prizes innovative solutions and the perpetually unreachable next big thing. Deep within this corporate rhetoric exists an unfounded belief in the feasibility to simultaneously nurture one’s cause and one’s reputation for radical change. This belief asserts the possibility of starting revolutions without breaking standards of professionalism that might tarnish one’s standing in public opinion.
History and Spies indicate otherwise.
The ease with which so many romanticize the American Revolution betrays the significant reputational and personal risks patriots like George Washington assumed in denouncing the British crown and striving for a just democratic republic. Washington physically wrote his own death sentence by signing the Declaration of Independence, his life hedged on a bet favoring a slim margin for American victory. The original Commander-in-Chief knew this selflessness to be necessary, if he were to ever expect a sacrifice even remotely similar from the people under his leadership.
By noon today, our University will have selected its next Student Body President, the next visionary to guide our school against expected tuition increases and our yearly helping of legislature-induced budget cuts. The ambition and direction of our newly elected campus leader will be critical to determining whether these financial obstructions to education further solidify into established norms, or whether we students rightfully demand more from our administration and lawmakers.
The unfortunate precedent set by recent Student Body Presidents has been abysmally superficial and exceedingly apolitical. But present plights pave roads to future potential, and the opportunity to exercise our collective student voice remains within reach for the student leader willing to risk failure in pursuit of a student mobilization the likes of which hasn’t been seen since football season.
Thus, my question to our new Student Body President is: Are you willing to sacrifice your reputation; are you willing to lay down your resume to fight for your student body? Are you willing to be figuratively hanged by both administration and alumni to treasonously ensure our school puts academics ahead of athletics just long enough to consider diverting a portion of our financial and moral exaltations from coaches to professors?
If indeed conductors must turn their back to the audience to lead the orchestra, let us hope that our next Student Body President might turn against the waves of popular student sentiment to satisfy an agenda that actually puts students first.
It begins with challenging students to challenge themselves as well as those around them, an idea that shouldn’t be too novel at a university. It continues with eschewing the bread and circuses of our wants to better address our legitimate needs for affordable tuition and comprehensive education.
This sort of revolution won’t found a country, but it might help us find something worth caring about.