Showing posts with label service organizations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label service organizations. Show all posts
|
| The Service Organization Community is a group of ten student-led groups, each dedicated to a specific social justice issue. Photo: Raven Yamamoto |
Re: "No One is More Worthy To Do Service"
By Raven Yamamoto
On Feb. 26, The Loyolan ran an op-ed titled “No one is more worthy to do service,” an article by assistant opinion editor Veronica Backer-Peral about the “exclusivity” of the Service Organization Community (SOC) after its recruitment season concluded.
I want to start by acknowledging my position and potential bias in this situation. Like you, I’m a member of an LMU service organization. I have had the privilege to serve as president of my organization, Agape, while also holding the title of SOC Co-chair from 2019-2020. During my leadership, I went through the deliberation process twice, welcomed in two generations of Agape members and saw firsthand what the process looks like behind the scenes.
As a member of SOC, I know the system has its flaws. There are issues of gender exclusivity and the potential for white saviorism. Transportation and funding are provided for members but are often not accessible to those outside of SOC. This op-ed failed to address the parts of SOC that are in actual need of reform.
In arguing for SOC’s reform, you wrote:
On Feb. 26, The Loyolan ran an op-ed titled “No one is more worthy to do service,” an article by assistant opinion editor Veronica Backer-Peral about the “exclusivity” of the Service Organization Community (SOC) after its recruitment season concluded.
I want to start by acknowledging my position and potential bias in this situation. Like you, I’m a member of an LMU service organization. I have had the privilege to serve as president of my organization, Agape, while also holding the title of SOC Co-chair from 2019-2020. During my leadership, I went through the deliberation process twice, welcomed in two generations of Agape members and saw firsthand what the process looks like behind the scenes.
As a member of SOC, I know the system has its flaws. There are issues of gender exclusivity and the potential for white saviorism. Transportation and funding are provided for members but are often not accessible to those outside of SOC. This op-ed failed to address the parts of SOC that are in actual need of reform.
In arguing for SOC’s reform, you wrote:
“There is a common misconception that service organizations are equivalent to sororities and fraternities. When I first heard about "service orgs," I was told they were ‘an alternative to Greek life.’ As a tour guide myself, I’ve always found that that’s the easiest way to explain how service organizations work.”
I agree that this misconception exists and that some people only apply to service orgs after getting rejected from Greek life because their rush seasons are so close together. But the people applying to Greek life are often not the same people applying to SOC, especially when you consider the privilege needed to afford to pay dues for both. Greek life dues are often around $1,000 per semester, while service organization dues don’t exceed $80, if that.
Never mind the different focuses of the two—one emphasizes social life and the other social justice. Both provide communities for those seeking them on campus, but the primary focus of SOC is service.
Furthermore, if this misconception is as prevalent as you claim it is, why explain SOC to prospective students this way? If we described service organizations more intentionally, wouldn’t that better debunk the false equivalency drawn between Greek life and SOC? Tour guides and orientation leaders should take a more active role in clarifying the purposes and intentions of service organizations instead of defaulting to convenience.
“The issue, though, [is] when hundreds of students are applying each year, it's hard to determine who is actually passionate about service and who is not. Great writing and interview skills are by no means essential to service nor a guarantee that a student is committed to service, but that’s what the applicants are being judged on.”
Actually, applicants are not always heavily graded on great writing. The essay portion of the application for SOC is usually weighed at a lower percentage than the in-person interview across organizations. In Agape, essays contribute 30% of applicants’ overall scores. Interview scores account for the other 70%.
The Center for Service and Action (CSA) has also always discouraged service organizations from using interview skills as criteria. Applicants—especially first-generation students and other students from underprivileged backgrounds—don’t always have the resources to learn ‘proper’ interview etiquette. For example, if someone isn’t dressed formally or doesn’t make eye contact, it doesn’t affect their score. While we can’t know for sure what happens in every student deliberation, there is a clear and conscious effort being made by CSA to keep things fair for applicants from all walks of life.
“Though the Center of Service and Action, LMU offers countless service trips and alternatives to go to the same placements as service organizations. But still, it is apparent that the Service Organization Community could do something to address its blatantly low acceptance rates.”
Could they, though? According to a report by Chelsea Brown, CSA’s Assistant Director for Student Engagement, the acceptance rate for SOC this year was significantly higher than last year. In 2019, the acceptance rate was 40%. This year, it was 64%, meaning more than half of the applicants were welcomed into SOC. This might not be the 100% you’re looking for, but it’s worth considering.
“One option is to be more blunt about the requirements associated with being part of an organization. 30 hours of service on and off-campus is a big time commitment. While recruitment events shouldn’t aim to deter potential applicants, they should fully inform students of the responsibilities that they are committing to. This way, we can get a better informed and, perhaps, smaller applicant pool.”
The 30-hour service requirement is made clear throughout the SOC recruitment process, both by SOC members and CSA staff. It’s explicitly mentioned at the Service Organization Open Houses, workshops that are held before the recruitment process begins, to explain what the commitment to a service organization looks like before students even apply. This hour requirement is also restated by most service orgs in applicant interviews as a way to ensure the commitment you’re describing. I can’t imagine a way to “be more blunt” about it.
This way, the Service Organization Community can ensure that applicants are committed and motivated to do service. Once this is accomplished it then becomes absurd to limit who is selected and who is not.
If anything, the issue stems from SOC members who either don’t complete their service hours or only complete service hours to meet the requirement. It’s very easy for people to simply clock in and out when going to their service placements and not engage with the systemic issues they are trying to solve. It shouldn’t be about counting hours, it should be about making hours count. The real issue with uncommitted SOC’ers is where their heart is, not whether they know what is expected of them timewise. As someone who has been in the deliberation room twice, I know the process is designed to weed out those with warped views of service or savior-like intentions, not to quantify a person’s worth when it comes to simply doing service. That’s never the intention.
This all can be summed up in the quote you used from Kamilah Roca-Datzer, in which she said: “service orgs aren’t the only way to do service and getting denied shouldn’t be disheartening.”
SOC, however exclusive, is not a roadblock for people who want to do service. The relationship between service organizations and their respective placement sites is not exclusive. Anyone is allowed to get in contact with these nonprofits and begin a working relationship with them as individuals or independent groups. I’ve even provided a list of each organization’s placement sites below for anyone who might want to serve at one.
The Center for Service and Action is open every day from 8 a.m- 5 p.m. Front desk student employees are there at all times to help connect students to community service opportunities. The office even offers maps that detail several nonprofits in Los Angeles, many within walking distance of LMU, where students can pursue service independently. Staff members’ doors are always open for students in search of guidance or mentorship.
There are also the “countless service trips and alternatives,” you mentioned that are available to those not in SOC. CSA offers Alternative Breaks and social justice immersion trips year-round, and runs El Espejo, an after-school mentoring program anyone can join. Campus Ministry runs the De Colores program, a monthly trip to Tijuana based in service and community. Feed the Hungry is a weekly service opportunity to prepare lunches for Santa Monica’s unhoused community. The list goes on.
Yes, “no one is more worthy to do service,” but no one is being forced to go through the service organization recruitment process. There is a valid argument to be made against SOC, but this isn’t it. If you’re going to criticize an institution, you have to criticize the right issues. Predominantly white membership, gender exclusivity and lack of transportation and funding available to non-SOC’ers are just a few of the many critiques one could have, but are nowhere to be found in this list of grievances.
The Center for Service and Action exists for a reason. You just have to make it there.
This is the opinion of Raven Yamamoto, a junior journalism major from Kahului, HI.
- 186th St. School
- 826 LA
- Al Wooten Jr. Heritage Center
- Alma Backyard Farms
- Ascension Catholic School
- Beach Clean Up
- Blessed Sacrament Church
- Boys and Girls Club Mar Vista
- Central Juvenile Hall
- Dream Catcher of LA
- El Espejo
- Feed the Hungry
- Francisco Homes
- Girls Inc.
- Good Shepherd Shelter
- Guadalupe Homeless Project
- Heal the Bay
- Kids Enjoy Exercise Now (KEEN) LA
- Lange Foundation
- Mar Vista Family Center
- Marycrest Manor
- Midnight Mission
- National Alliance on Mental Illness
- Our Lady of Victory School
- Richstone Family Center
- Safe Place for Youth
- San Miguel Catholic School
- Southeast Middle School
- St. Columbkille
- St. Francis Center
- St. Joseph Center
- St. Margaret’s Center
- The Amanda Foundation
- Urban Compass
- Venice Learning Garden
- Verbum Dei High School
Gender Inclusivity in Service Organizations: Is it Enough?
By Kellie Toyama
On Feb. 24, the Super Tuesday of LMU’s Service Organization Community (SOC), a new class of members was invited to join the school’s ten service organizations.
Each service organization has a unique social justice focus (save for Ignatians and Crimson Circle who are focused on social justice overall) and requires each of its members to complete at least 30 hours of community service per semester. These hours are mostly done at nonprofits that work with their respective organization’s cause.
Members also meet weekly to engage in social justice-oriented dialogue, creating community amongst themselves around their shared passion for their org’s focus.
Service organizations also have gender requirements for applicants, some organizations accepting members of all genders while others only accept members of one. The subject of gender inclusivity has sparked debate, prompting questions of how certain gender requirements can be seen as gatekeeping when it comes to doing service around a particular focus.
Under LMU’s Center for Service and Action, SOC consists of the following orgs with their respective focuses (if applicable) and gender requirements:
All-gender organizations:
- Agape: Mental health
- Creare: Youth engagement
- Ignatians
- Sursum Corda: Food justice
Female-identifying and gender-non-conforming organizations:
- Belles: Domestic violence
- Espérer: Human trafficking and environmental justice
- Gryphon Circle: Education justice
- Marians: Women and children
Single-gender (male-identifying) organizations:
- Crimson Circle
- Magis: Homelessness
While service orgs are not meant to be exclusive, the selection process for each org is intended to cultivate a community around authentic philanthropy. If everyone with a commitment to service is meant to have a spot in a service organization, it’s worthwhile to consider the limiting aspects of SOC that can lead organizations to unconsciously exclude diverse perspectives from all parts of the student body. During recruitment season, it’s especially important to consider the ways gender non-conforming individuals may feel barred from joining SOC entirely since only four of the ten organizations accept applications regardless of gender.
Acknowledging LMU’s gender non-conforming, non-binary and transgender students is essential for true inclusivity. Genderqueer individuals offer a unique perspective as a deeply marginalized population. Students who identify with one or multiple marginalized groups often have the human understanding necessary for accompanying underserved communities. Many orgs have a mission statement that works to further humanize the marginalized and there is arguably no one else who knows how to do that better than marginalized people themselves.
Few gender-non-conforming (GNC) individuals have the chance to be heard in a space of privilege. If given more opportunities to share their experiences in safe spaces, perhaps being affected by the org’s central focus themselves, they could provide exactly what is necessary to continually push each organization towards the end goal.
Formerly single-gender orgs have opened applications to gender non-conforming and non-binary individuals in the past few years, including Marians, Belles and Gryphon Circle. The change is appreciated and should not be discredited, but is it enough? Should all service organizations accept members of all genders? Will gender non-conforming members be truly welcome in spaces dominated by a certain gender just by being accepted? An honest answer to that question can only come from the mouths of those who do not identify as cisgender.
While it is understandable why single-gender orgs exist, it’s also interesting to consider how gender operates as an intentional variable of service in outreach. The following are brief statements from a few service organization presidents on the subject of how they engage with gender in their org:
“As the president of an organization that is not open to people of all genders—I think a lot about gender in specific spaces. I recognize that even our best efforts at inclusive language can alienate and exclude people. Gryphon Circle was historically a women's organization and opening that to include non-binary and gender non-conforming people comes from [a] recognition that womanhood is not biological or defined by specific ways of thinking, being or acting. At each of our service placements, we are doing gendered work—educating children, providing care and companionship for both children and the elderly, and distributing food. I don't think that women or GNC people are more suited to this work… however, I do think that this kind of service provides us with important opportunities that transcend or resist societal ideas about gender: to seize power and use privilege to advocate for those we serve, and to identify how the issues we see at our placements disproportionately affect marginalized genders, namely women and those who fall outside of the gender binary and norms.”
— Lauree Anne DeMattos, Gryphon Circle President
“I think [including GNC individuals] was a really important step for us. By doing this, we can still allow a safe space for women, but we also include people who identify with underrepresented genders. A community of service should find value in representing a diverse group and I think it is very important that SOC and LMU as a whole [continue] to move toward inclusion. Gender non-conforming people belong at this university. Our org is focused on serving women and children. Specifically, women of color [who] are disproportionately affected by lack of access to childcare. Having a shelter dedicated specifically to women allows their specific needs to be addressed in a safe and compassionate way.”
— Lila Roades, Marians President
“What I value most about Magis being a male-identifying org is that it has helped me navigate my sense of masculinity. It is a community that is willing to discuss and confront toxic masculinity while also constructing a more positive sense of what it means to identify as a man. Most of all, it is a place for men to be vulnerable with each other—which is a sadly rare occurrence in society. Being a male-identifying org helps our service by deepening our sense of gender. This especially is useful in mentor positions such as El Espejo and Verbum Dei in which we are able to teach young men about masculinity as a positive force. This allows us to challenge the current social view of what masculinity means as well as gives us many experiences to reflect on and deepen our own understanding.”
— Griffin Devine, Magis President
“Ignatians, which was the first all-gender service organization at LMU, values itself in celebrating multiple perspectives and backgrounds. We believe it is extremely important to recognize the different life experiences, whether it be due to where they are from, their gender, their nationality, their belief systems, etc. In doing so, we are able to foster a safe and welcoming environment in which people can learn and serve through an intersectional lens. This awareness of differing voices helps members really embody and understand the Ignatian motto of being people with and for others"
— Nelson Poon, Ignatians President
“The members of Espérer have recently voted to include gender-non-conforming individuals within the past week. This change will be officially recognized after my current e-board is allowed to amend our constitution at the end of the semester. When I first joined Espérer, I was an incredibly insecure person when it came to social interaction, so being with a group of women who were willing to care for me, consider my emotions and fears with me [and] empower me as a leader and a person was a life-changing experience for me. I do not know where I would be if I did not have those women of Espérer supporting me. As we transition to include gender non-conforming individuals, I believe they [will provide an] important view and opinion to share with other women as they have valuable experience when it comes to understanding the boundaries (or lack thereof) of gender. Admittedly, gender does not matter for our org's placements. We work with children and we work in the environment, but there is no reason that gender should be a boundary to service.”
— Christina Martinez, Espérer President
This is the opinion of Kellie Toyama, an English and women and gender studies double major from O'ahu, HI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Social Icons