Column: Let's redefine what it means to be apolitical

There are many words with multiple meanings. You can fall down, or take a walk on a fall afternoon. You can ship a package while you wait for your ship to dock. You can both tear up and tear your shirt after your March Madness bracket falls apart.

I’d like to recategorize the word apolitical as one of these homonyms. While it doesn't currently sit in this category, I believe we could redefine how people interact with politics by granting this word an additional definition.

Let me explain.

Being apolitical — apathetic to politics and having limited involvement in political affairs — has an obviously negative connotation. In a university, where ideological affiliation and level of political involvement often serves as social currency, being apolitical can tank your social status and relationship with friends. Those who are apolitical are viewed as uncaring toward various causes deemed important.

It is valid to be frustrated with those who are not politically involved or informed — it’s a sign of privilege to decide that politics does not affect you. We have a duty to take action on behalf of others if we have the resources to do so.

When a nuanced issue becomes mainstream, politically involved people often have an unspoken 24 hours to choose a stance and select two lines of reasoning to back it up. With limited time to choose this angle, students pick the side that their algorithm promotes, and select their evidence from Instagram posts and stories. The topics of conversation on campus for the next two weeks become “have you enrolled for classes yet” and “can you explain to me your views on this extremely nuanced topic in two sentences.”

The easiest way to prove we’re politically committed is to make our stances publicly seen and heard. Doing so quickly demonstrates that we’re keeping up with the news, even if we aren’t really reading it before picking a side.

More often than not, we feel the pressure to pick a side so quickly because we see other people doing so. For more nuanced debates, we need to hear multiple perspectives before making our decision to ensure we aren’t spreading misinformation when we discuss the topic with others.

However, by granting the word apolitical homonym status, students could allot themselves a reprieve from the requirement to rapidly assert newly formed political views. Instead of apolitical describing someone who is politically apathetic, it could describe an individual who is politically involved but ideologically cautious. Let’s retell the story from above with my new definition.

A political issue goes viral, and students grant themselves a period of apoliticality before asserting their viewpoint. They understand a topic thoroughly, and don’t feel the pressure to fit themselves into a dichotomy. They engage in debate with others throughout, but people are able to change sides fluidly because we do not feel stuck in our original perspective. Once they feel fully informed, they can make an educated decision.

I understand there are fears of inaction with students temporarily remaining ideologically neutral. But the issues that arise with some lost action are outweighed by the benefits gained in a more educated student body.

This wordplay isn’t just for fun and games. Under the status quo, students are frequently alienated for what they believe, if it isn’t aligned with the majority viewpoint in any given environment. The reality is that regardless of the side you’re on, students are quick to jump to conclusions about what they believe and why they do. The next time a political issue moves into the mainstream, one could claim apoliticality and still be seen as both politically engaged and a critical thinker.

@dthopinion | opinion@dailytarheel.com