Do you remember hearing, “If you’d pay Bristol $20,000, then why not pay me, someone that didn’t screw up and have an unplanned baby at 17, $30,000 to speak about sexual responsibility?” and “She was actually pretty good on ‘Dancing With the Stars’ and I’d go see her even though Brandy should have won?”

My own mixed feelings were voiced by other students. Most people agreed that Bristol Palin should not be paid such a high price, but at the same time were certainly willing to go see her speak.

When Palin was selected to be the keynote speaker of a panel during our Sexual Responsibility Week back in February, which would have cost a grand total of $20,000, the Wash. U. campus went wild with protests. Nonetheless, there was at least some expressed interest in her appearance, even if it was for the wrong reasons

An even more scandalous event occurred just three weeks ago when Rutgers brought Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi to its campus for $32,000. The scandalous part is not Snooki’s presence, but rather that Rutgers’ commencement speaker this year, Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winner Toni Morrison, will be getting paid $30,000 to speak

Universities across the country cannot stop talking about these issues in order to decipher how and why our nation’s best and brightest gain substantial utility from “abject” pop culture icons.

The explanation is ambiguous, but one idea is that perhaps academics are not immune to the power of “the screen.”

When thinking about “the screen,” I get uncomfortable as thoughts of depressing sci-fi literature like “Fahrenheit 451” and “Brave New World” come to mind. Both novels avoid subtlety to comment on government-led censorship and our growing social dependence on the superficial luxuries of modern, fast-paced society.

Our lives are filled with screens (billboards, cell phone faces, TVs and advertisements) that, outside of work and classes, dictate exactly what we should be thinking about and the exact hours that we should pay attention. This is not to say that the screen is taking us to a brave new end, which in essence can be described as a society full of the citizens with a false sense of identity that regurgitates the values and information learned from these screens. Instead, I simply opt to acknowledge the omnipresent screens and their role in every hour of our lives.

Perhaps intellectual students will pay more for Snooki than Toni Morrison simply because we see and know Snooki so much more. Some see the “Jersey Shore” crew as casual buddies to hang out with weekly, some going so far as to scream “IT’S T-SHIRT TIME” and “CABS ARE HERE” at appropriate times. Pop culture is often frowned upon for being the reason why Americans get an immature international reputation and why our nation’s children are turning into evil gremlins. Furthermore, pop culture is typically separated based on class and education, without regard to the mixing that now occurs due to reality television and Internet sensations like Rebecca Black

In other words, it is clear that the educated elite “should” value Toni Morrison, while teenagers and college students that obviously do not attend Wash. U. and have time to party “should” value “Jersey Shore.” Socio-economic cultural fusion is now part of our modernity, and the idea that the elite “should not” derive benefit from anything that Bristol and Snooki have to say is an archaic mindset reserved only for my grandfather. Modern pop culture is more than evolving. It now transcends education.

Ultimately, does Snooki deserve to make more than Toni Morrison? According to what elitist intellectualist theories teach us, we should not degrade our minds (at least in front of people) with such infantile drivel. Do you want to chill with the “Jersey crew” if our university is paying for it? Heck yes. Are academic-minded Wash. U. kids above packing Graham Chapel for Bristol or Snooki? Probably not.