-Upon logging into my account today, I was thoroughy amused to see “teach for america – rejected” as one of the searches that resulted in someone viewing my blog. Comical reminders of past failures are always fun, and I’m glad fellow TFA rejects get to read my ramblings.
-Recent events at work have resulted in me sitting at home at the end of a day still trying to fully resolve my thoughts. So much so that I reworded the previous sentence at least 4 times and still don’t think it captures the state of unease I’ve experienced at work in recent weeks. Much of this discord stems from the seemingly sudden surge in the number of individuals who seem to be interested in volunteering to fulfill some kind of community service requirement.
Many of these people are between the ages of 15-18, in the midst of those formative years when a lot of people seem to need SOMETHING to latch onto in order to gain direction and purpose. A lot of these kids, in my estimation, have gotten into trouble out of boredom or as the result of an absence of any real, fulfilling target for their energies. I never went down the trouble making route when I was that age, but I can at least identify with the restlessness that results from not having a significant and internally-motivated target for my efforts.
As such, and because I found my own fulfilling, personally-rewarding purpose through my experiences in service-learning/community involvement, I can’t help but want to give some of these kids the opportunity to have the same grounding, eye-opening experiences I had a few years later in life. However, as the volunteer coordinator for an organization that works with a vulnerable population, I also have a responsibility to our clients to ensure that we utilize only those volunteers who can make meaningful contributions to their ability to experience life-enriching, accessible outdoor recreation activities.
So every time a teenage kid comes into the office to inquire about fulfilling a community service requirement, I experience the same internal struggle. On one hand, I firmly believe that teaching these kids why I believe what we do is so important and giving them the opportunity to play a meaningful role in providing those services could really result in a cascade effect-type scenario, leading to active citizenship and decreased delinquency, a very positive effect for the community. On the other hand, I realize the risk that is implicit in letting kids who have already gotten into some kind of trouble have significant interaction with our clients, many of which comprise a vulnerable population. Trying to figure out how to do the most good for the community while preventing the most harm is a dilemma I still haven’t resolved. I think I’m going to go read some J.S. Mill and meditate on utilitarianism…
- DISCLAIMER: This bullet point will probably make most sense only to alumni of Alternative Breaks.
On many days when I come home from work, I really wish I could partake in reflection with my coworkers. Having had Alternative Breaks trips as the cornerstone of my formative undergraduate experiences, I’m constantly caught trying to integrate anything I do that triggers my AB schema (hey, some of my psychology vernacular is still intact!) into that same framework. As such, I really see my entire *VISTA experience as a year-long AB/service-learning trip centered around the issue of people with disabilities. However, one element missing from this “AB trip” is the opportunity for nightly reflection with my “tripmates”/coworkers.
If I were participating in a reflection session tonight, I have one thing I’d definitely like to discuss. I conducted a volunteer orientation session a few weeks ago, and in the mandatory health form/liability waiver that we have all volunteers fill out, I noticed that one of the prospective volunteers marked that he suffered from bipolar disorder, which happens to be one of the “disabilities” that our organization considers as sufficent to be considered a “person with a disability,” and someone with this condition hence would generally partake in our programs as a “participant,” and not as a “volunteer.”
This raised a number of interesting issues for me. Although our “participants” are asked to pay a very modest fee for our activities, which is in fact much less expensive than it would cost them to partake in the same activities on their own, our “volunteers” nevertheless take part free of charge. The general assumption here is that “volunteers” are providing a service that helps to result in “participants” being able to access outdoor recreation that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to, and as such they are not asked to contribute financially. It occurred to me that, if we consider bipolar disorder to be a disability that precludes “participants” who suffer from it from being able to partake in ourdoor recreation activities on their own, should we really believe that one such individual, simply because he happens to register as a “volunteer” instead of a “participant,” can not only partake in these activities on his own, but can also contribute to other “participants’” success in these endeavors? But at the same time, one of the stated goals of our organization is to reduce/remove stereotypes regarding people with disabilities. Would I not be acting in direct violation of this goal if I were to assume that, strictly because such an individual has this stated “disability,” he can’t contribute to others’ success in participating in outdoor recreation activities? Has my use of “quotation marks” in this paragraph become annoying yet? But in all seriousness, I haven’t fully sorted through my thoughts on this, and having reflection has really helped me with tough questions like this in the past, so I really wish I could do it now.