Zoey Freedman: Common books with contemporary themes could help students connect

UCLA’s incoming students are bombarded with traditions from they moment arrive on campus: among them, the legendary campus tours and the historic crosstown rivalry that serve to bond students together and give them something in common to share.

Another of these traditions is introducing and distributing the Common Book, the book picked by UCLA for incoming students to initiate conversations and bonding at the start of the year. However, this tradition isn’t unique to UCLA, as approximately 40 percent of universities partake in putting out common reading lists.

But if the common reading at universities lacks the ability to highlight the connections between the students reading it, is it really fair to call it common?

Recently, academia and state legislative bodies have debated about the kinds of works that schools should be choosing to assign.

In the academic community, there is dissension over whether schools should stick with the classics or progress to more contemporary works for their common readings. State legislative bodies have taken issue with several contemporary choices because they appear to advance a political agenda. But despite – and maybe even because of – any controversy, schools should strive to make their common books more relatable and therefore more appealing by sticking with contemporary novels that deal with issues that interest and compel students.

Even at UCLA, where the Common Book has quite often been a contemporary work, the program doesn’t ever seem to reach the intended impact of connecting new students through highlighting shared experiences and provoking thoughtful conversation. So at schools that choose classical literature, the impact of these books is even more diluted. Even if a select few students do take the time to read the book – and not many do – the commonalities the book is supposed to emphasize are often lost.

Giving students the opportunity to read about relevant subject matter will increase the chance that students will engage with the reading in the intended manner.

This is especially true of books that deal with controversial or compelling political themes. Previous UCLA choices for the Common Book, such as Judd Winick’s “Pedro and Me” and Tracy Kidder’s “Mountains Beyond Mountains,” focus on current issues like dealing with HIV and global health care, themes that can often be met with controversy and heated discussion.

In February, South Carolina’s House of Representatives cut funding for two major universities, the College of Charleston and University of South Carolina Upstate, for choosing books with gay themes. Republican members of the Legislature pushed to cut funding because they believed these schools were advancing a political agenda through reading books focusing on the gay community.

These actions by the South Carolina Legislature are egregious, but the controversy started by these books may be the spark students need to feel compelled to engage in the reading. If students take time to read these books, they may be inspired to start conversations about contemporary issues on campus.

Scholars on each side of this debate have taken to focusing on students’ desire to learn and connect when it comes to picking up and indulging in literature.

The pro-classic side argues that by choosing contemporary novels, colleges do not encourage students to learn from the past and imply students aren’t driven enough to pick up classical books on their own time outside of the academic environment.

Those on the side of contemporary literature argue that more recent novels provide a platform for students to connect, because oftentimes the themes addressed are ones that they deal with in their own lives.

These kinds of works provide an avenue for students to more easily open up and discuss not only the literature, but also their own lives with their peers.

Another benefit of choosing contemporary literature is the added opportunity of bringing the author to campus, which could further the experience for students who have read the book and spark more conversation. This in itself could inspire more students to take the time to read the book and understand the topics and themes discussed in it.

For example, Wes Moore’s “The Other Wes Moore” – UCLA’s Common Book for 2012 – focuses on socioeconomic status, family influence and the influence of drugs and alcohol, all of which are extremely relevant and relatable to many UCLA students’ lives or even their decision to attend college.

Dealing with family discord, drug addictions and other trying issues can make people feel isolated from their peers. But by bringing these issues to light through literature, students can not only relate to the author and the characters of the piece, but also begin to realize that they’re not alone on campus.

The ability to easily relate to the literature could motivate students to actually complete the common book, heightening the chances that discussion would actually take place and that the common reading would reach its intended purpose.

The ultimate purpose of the common book is to welcome students to their new university and make them realize that they’re now part of a community of people who share their experiences. Discussing contemporary themes could be the step students need to start feeling like they belong.