The Folly of the Wonk

American University has a new fad. 

It's called wonk. 

I don't like it.  

The concept behind wonk was born out of the notion that AU students aspire to become outstanding experts in their field of academic study. With the same letters in the word "know" arranged in reverse order, the not so subtle implication is that students will eventually know their field forwards and backwards. A wonk is therefore a sillier, collegiate term for scholar, or so the AU administrators responsible for the campaign believe. 

The truth is that the term is neither unique to AU (despite AU's 35 trademark applications on it and its variations) nor particularly useful. Rather, it appears as though the administration has once again erred in their judgment of identifying a central concept around which our student body can rally. Students at AU, while not all the best and brightest, are hard working, highly motivated, talented, and serious about their academic and future careers. This silly campaign, though not entirely a bad idea, is not one that will resonate with the majority of AU students. Conceded, being detached from the campus community certainly does limit my ability to assess the reality of wonk in the daily functioning of the university. But my educated guess is that wonk has done little in affecting the student body for better or for worse. More likely, it is a direct attempt by the administration to appear more engaged in the social component of the campus community, one that is not particularly intriguing. 

In examining the campaign, albeit lightly and without great expectations, my only rationale is that the campaign exists for two possible reasons. The first reason may be to provide a visible, symbolic buzz word to represent the student body, therefore creating an image of the typical AU student. The second possibility is that perhaps AU decided that in order for students to feel universally accepted or at ease in a new environment, such an image would provide intangible emotional and psychological benefits that would serve a part in the process of social integration for new students. 

I have a few problems with these motives. Addressing the first rationale, I, like many of my peers, already have a very clear picture of what is conveyed in the concept of the average AU student. To be fair, this definition may differ depending on the individual. But to be honest, those who do go to American University do have an idea of the average AU student, and speaking as a student of this fine institution I would not be wrong in my claim that one's conceptualization of the average AU student would very likely deviate little between the thousands of individuals that compose our student body. There is such a reality as the average AU student, and that reality exists in hundreds if not thousands of the people at AU. An effort to explicitly characterize the typical AU student is unnecessary.

Regarding the second, it is unrealistic and slightly insulting to insinuate that such a campaign could provide a feeling of acceptance-real or artificial-in a student who does not identify with any other group or individual on campus. That AU's rate of retention between freshman and sophomore year is lower than desired is reflective of the lack of social integration opportunities provided by the university. While AU does an excellent job of providing such activities during orientation, such programs should be maintained during the academic year as well. As all enlightened individuals are aware, education in modern society is much more than the classes alone-a fully integrated education is one that provides outlets in the social competence as well as the academic realm alone. 

Lastly, the question as to whether the wonk campaign is little more than a waste of resources is both valid and reasonable. The essential question remains whether the funding allocated towards wonk could have been better spent elsewhere. Given the strength of AU's financial leadership, such expenditures are unlikely to affect other programs, but the economics of the wonk campaign surely merit considerations of its opportunity cost. Note: The full cost of American University's Wonk Campaign was quoted by an AU Official as USD 675,000. For a breakdown of costs, see Chris Lewis's article on the campaign, "The Price of Wonk," which appeared in the American Way of Life Magazine. 

The wonk campaign is the direct result of overemphasizing a mentality that needs no further reinforcement. Students at American University already strive to become recognizable figures, whether in politics or academia, and any added pressure from wonk amounts to blatant overkill. Nor does the wonk campaign add any value to the campus community-AU social life remains fragmented and loosely based around extracurricular interests, where exclusive executive boards plan and control the events of their organization and draw in a membership that typically is little more than an audience. Wonk does nothing to provide a greater cohesion between divided movements, organizations, or academic groups, and indeed fails to deliver any tangible results.

Many AU students, often observant and analytical, surely are aware of the numerous fallacies of the wonk campaign. The fault is not that the administration did not produce the effort to engage the community, but rather that it was so wildly off the mark in its estimation of a unifying, compelling central image. That its relatively high cost could easily be allocated toward other initiatives (i.e., three full scholarships including room and board) also thrusts scrutiny on the program. If American University wishes to be serious about implementing overarching, pragmatic solutions toward integrating new students into the campus community, more effective and meaningful measures are needed. A colorful T-shirt is no substitute for a supportive friend, and it should not take the misallocation of $675,000 to realize this simple truth. Until a new mentality is adopted by the individuals responsible for wonk, it appears as though the students of American University will have to live with the label, regardless of how big of sgabehcuod it makes us feel.