Johnson 1

Jaren Johnson
English2010-94
Montague/17JAN2015
Response to Thomas Ehrlichs Civic Engagement
In the year 2000, The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education published
a national report card entitled Measuring Up 2000. In this edition, Thomas Ehrlich, a board
member of the aforementioned center, submitted his revealing and troubling article, Civic
Engagement. Mr. Ehrlich describes a startling downward trend of civic involvement by the
people of the United States in particular, by those who have been the recipients of higher
education.
Ehrlich begins with a historical belief and observation that college graduates are much
more likely to be involved in their communities much more so than citizens with less
education. In reference to multiple studies and research, he suggests that there is enough
evidence to support these beliefs and observations as fact. Upon establishing this foundation,
Mr. Ehrlich goes on to describe the trend that he finds so troubling.
From the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s, it is believed that participation in public meetings
dropped by 34% over the total population, and by 16% among college graduates. Mr. Ehrlich
reminds us that a democracy requires an educated and active citizenry. If this trend is accurate,
and is allowed to continue, then it suggests that we, the citizens of the United States, are at risk
of losing our democracy.

Johnson 2

In this article, Ehrlich is addressing an audience of college-level educators and

administrators with the potential of elected officials, students, and the general public eventually
reading it. Naturally, there is an academic tone to the writing; though, my impression is that the
author maintains a personable touch as well. Mr. Ehrlich employs the elements of logos, ethos,
and pathos throughout the text.
Thomas Ehrlich has the luxury of his own experience and background to establish the
ethos of his article. Mr. Ehrlich not only is a board member of the institute publishing the report,
but he is also a graduate from Harvard Law, has published a number of books, has been a
University President, and has been civically engaged throughout his life. Within the text of the
article, there is a photo of him with a description of his achievements. He also draws upon the
research, studies, and reports of other professionals in the industry.
Ethos often opens the door for logos, in that there is a degree of logic in listening to and
following the advice of individuals that appear to possess ethos. The aforementioned combines
to create a logical algorithm which is based upon the premise that democracy is foundational to
our society, and essential to our future success as a country. Therefore, higher education leads to
an educated citizenry, which leads to civic engagement, which leads to a functional democracy,
which leads to our future and our success.
The pathos of Mr. Ehrlichs article is that if this trend is allowed to continue, without
being curbed and reversed, we are at great risk of eroding away the moral, civil, and civic fabric
of our country, allowing the work of our founding fathers to decay and crumble, and ultimately
lose all that the previous generations worked so hard for and sacrificed to establish. We risk
losing it all.

Johnson 3

I am very appreciative of Mr. Ehrlichs observations and warnings. I also appreciate his
efforts to encourage change within the institutions of higher education which will hopefully lead
to a return to a greater civic engagement in current and future generations. However, after
reading the article, I was left questioning the empirical evidence that higher education leads to
greater civic engagement. It seems more reasonable to conclude that there is a strong correlation
between the two. If more people are receiving a college education, and yet civic engagement has
actually decreased over the same period of time, then it suggests that other factors had a more
profound influence on civic engagement. This is not a criticism to Mr. Ehrlich as much as it is an
exploration into the factors that may have contributed to the downward trend.
For example, it is reasonable to suggest that the JFK assassination, LBJ and the blatant
lies of the mortality rate in Vietnam, drugs, anti-establishment movement, the impeachment of
Nixon, miserable economy, the failures of Carter, and changing trends in society have a strong
correlation to the manifestations of civic apathy described as beginning in the seventies. Perhaps
an adverse effect of a growing government and ever increasing government programs is that
people begin to cede the responsibility of their civic duty and their philanthropic hearts over to
the governing body that professes to take care of all?
The good news is that it is clear that there is a very strong correlation to civic
involvement and higher education. If the community of professors, administrators, and other
professionals within the higher education community are seriously engaged in combating apathy
within rising generations, then there is also a strong possibility that there may indeed be a return
to civic engagement.